Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Bristol, West, in the room of the right honourable Oliver Frederick George Stanley, M.C., deceased.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about a change in business next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. Following discussions which have taken place through the usual channels, arrangements will be made for a debate on the coal situation on Thursday of next week. Business already announced for that day will be postponed, except the Motion to refer the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading, which will be moved at the beginning of Business on Wednesday.
I should also like to take this opportunity of informing the House, in view of the debate on the Second Reading of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill on Monday next, that a statement of the Government's conclusions on the recommendations of the Lewis Committee on Army and Air Force Courts-Martial and the Pilcher Committee on Naval Courts-Martial will be contained in a White Paper, which will be made available in the Vote Office at 12 noon today. This is the fuller statement foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in reply to a Question in this House on 19th September last.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information in the last part of his statement, I am sure he will recognise that, in view of the short notice, it will be quite impossible to debate on Monday

the conclusions of the Government expressed in this White Paper, even if it were permissible to do so within the rules of order governing a Second Reading debate. At the same time, having the Government's conclusion before us will assist our consideration of the Bill, and we are grateful for it.

Mr. Ede: I am grateful to the bon and learned Gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of when the Committee stage of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill, which was to have taken place on Thursday, will now be taken?

Mr. Ede: I cannot say. I have no doubt that conversations will have to take place with regard to that matter also.

Mr. H. Hynd: What will be the basis of the debate on coal next Thursday? Will it be on a Government Motion, an Opposition Motion, or what?

Mr. Ede: That has not yet been settled.

MEAT RATION (REDUCTION)

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement about the meat ration.
I have already told the House about the difficulties with Argentina, and that, while we are willing to negotiate with them on a reasonable basis, we feel that their present demands are not reasonable. In the circumstances, I regret to have to inform the House that the carcase meat ration will be reduced from 10d. to 8d. a week as from 4th February. The supplementary issue of 2d. worth of canned corned beef will continue, but the issue of manufacturing meat will be reduced by about one-third on the same date. In order to maintain the remuneration of butchers at a reasonable level, the present rebate of 2s. 3d. in the £ will be increased during the period of the reduced ration to 4s.
It is hazardous to speculate about future ration levels, but apart from the possibility of unforseeable disasters, such as losses of ships, this reduced ration is


the lowest level to which the carcase meat ration is likely to be reduced at any time in the year as a result of the loss of supplies from Argentina. Even, therefore, if there is no resumption of imports from Argentina, any changes in the carcase meat ration from now on, should be in an upward direction.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure the whole House will be glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found an early opportunity of clearing up any uncertainty that might have survived from the rather incompetent way in which the debate ended last evening. Of course, the Opposition will want time to consider the consequences of his very grave statement, which will be received with the utmost distress on all sides of the House and in the country as a whole. The country cannot at this stage refrain from drawing the conclusion that this is in large part a consequence of the Government's policy of bulk buying. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The Opposition must naturally reserve its rights after full consideration to decide what steps it desires to take.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Since diplomatic prestige-buying has scored such a brilliant success for the people of this country, ought not the transfer of Sir John Balfour to be replaced by that of some Minister of even greater stature, such as the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Questions were asked last night about the necessity for controlling the prices of other commodities to make up for the deficiency in the meat supply, namely, in respect of rabbits and fish. Can the Minister tell us whether he has any proposals to make in that regard? My right hon. Friend also made reference last night to Sir Henry Turner and what he said about the price of £90 per ton being a waste of public money. My right hon. Friend will no doubt remember that there have been changes in the price level even since that date, and will adjust his arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Webb: In reply to the first supplementary question, if it were as easy as signing an Order to impose control on rabbits and fish that would have been done, but it is not as easy as that. It is

a very complicated and delicate matter. I have been in touch with the trade about it, and I am advised that if I impose controls on rabbits it would take rabbits out of the ordinary market altogether. We cannot run the risk of that happening unless there is considerable evidence to show that prices would get completely out of hand. In the case of fish, the trade have assured me that now that they have more trawlers and that all restrictions on fishing have been taken off, in a week or two there should be more fish coming into the shops. I am waiting for the result of that operation, and it is in the light of that result that I shall decide whether controls are necessary.

Miss Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make on the statement made by an authoritative New Zealander that controlled wholesale meat distribution in this country is in a state of chaos and that as a result thousands of tons of meat may be rotting in storage?

Mr. Webb: I had a look into that statement, and I think that it is quite wild and inaccurate and has no basis in fact at all.

Mr. John E. Haire: Has the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion for additional supplies of foodstuffs to compensate for this loss of meat supply, for example canned goods?

Mr. Webb: As I explained earlier, we are doing all that we can do to increase the supply of other foods. I hope before long to be able to make a further increase in the supply of bacon, but, of course, we are conditioned by the available supply.

Mr. Gammans: Leaving aside party politics altogether, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, in view of the fact that the present system has brought the British people to a lower level of meat than any other country in Western Europe, to consider any alternative method of obtaining meat which may be put up to him by the meat trade?

Mr. Webb: As I explained last night, we have already started consultations with the trade and other expert interests to ascertain their views on the kind of system which they think could replace the existing system when that time comes along.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the Minister, before closing his mind to the proposal to put a controlled price on rabbits, satisfy himself that if a fair controlled price were placed on rabbits, they would not disappear from the market?

Mr. Webb: My mind is not closed. Indeed we are preparing schemes for controls if they are needed; but representatives of the Co-operative movement came to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] —they are interests with considerable experience—and said, "If you impose control on rabbits not a single member of the Co-operative Societies will have any rabbits at all." This weight of evidence I cannot dismiss lightly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where will they go?"] They will go into the black market and to all sorts of other sources which we cannot control.

Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the situation with regard to pork? Seeing that we have had a threat that we are now to have a shortage of coal as well as a shortage of meat, what alternative is he going to provide to overcome this possible detriment to the health of the nation?

Mr. Webb: The policy in agriculture in recent years has been to produce pigs for bacon and not for pork. It is intended this year to make certain price changes, which we hope will encourage and stimulate the production of more pork pigs and less bacon pigs.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend take a chance on rabbits going into the black market and impose immediate control, and will he deal severely with any case of black marketeering which may come to light?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about adjusting prices for the production of pork, is this an official announcement of Government policy or foreshadowing what is going to happen in the February Price Review, and can he elaborate the statement, which is a very important one?

Mr. Webb: I cannot add to what I have already said.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the

control of poultry prices, which, I understand, are already soaring at the present time?

Mr. Webb: Obviously we have considered all possibilities of control, but controls on perishable foods are a double-edged weapon. I do not want to discredit the idea of price control by applying it loosely and inadequately. In certain cases of commodities, where it is possible to measure the content and labour value in producing them, price control is a valuable instrument. In commodities like fish and rabbits, which have to be graded in all sorts of ways, price control can be a very awkward weapon to apply, and I do not think that we should apply it until we find that there is no other way to prevent a rise in prices.

Air Commodore Harvey: In view of the difficulty in issuing the minute ration of meat, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for rations to be drawn for an extended period, and will he say why meat has been exported from Ireland to North America. Is he satisfied that he is going to get meat from Ireland?

Mr. Webb: We are fully satisfied that we shall get every available ounce of meat from Ireland. I cannot say what they will do with their other reserves. They are a sovereign State, and they can do what they like, but we are taking all that they can send us. On the question of rations over an extended period. I will look into that.

Mr. Albert Evans: Will the Minister say how long he proposes to wait before he comes to a decision on the re-imposition of controlled prices on fish?

Mr. Webb: The trade assure me that in the first or second week of February there should be a sign of improved supplies. I want to wait until after that, when I shall be compelled to take action in the light of circumstances at the time, and that is what I propose to do.

Sir William Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in these very difficult times, in order to help the housewife, consider extending the very valuable food notes issued to the Press indicating what alternatives the housewife may resort to in place of meat. I suggest that the House of Commons might well show


an example in this matter. There is only one vegetarian dish on the current menu. There might be ten. I would suggest that the abundant supplies of Scottish oats might be brought to the notice of the public.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that since the decontrol of prices, large proportions of the best offal are going to the hotels? Can he say what facilities exist to ensure that the housewife is getting her fair share of offal, and will he bear in mind the need for better quality fish? Salmon went up to 20s. per lb. yesterday. Halibut is twice the price that it was at the time of control. The experience of the House is that under controls, fish, rabbits and other things were cheap and available, and that in the absence of controls most of the prices have rocketed amazingly.

Mr. Drayson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any more accurate information than he did last night on what will be the actual prices which housewives will have to pay for meat if he pays the price which the Argentine are now demanding? The Minister mentioned a price in the United States of 10s. per lb. Surely he will agree that that is misleading in view of the fact that wage levels are about 2½ times as high there as they are in this country.

Mr. Webb: It is impossible to state how much per lb. is involved. We have to consider the effects of paying more to the Argentine on our agreements with the Dominion suppliers. If we pay more to the Argentine, it is inevitable that we must pay more to New Zealand and Australian producers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?'] They would expect it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Fair shares for all."] When I leave the House I am about to meet the Prime Minister of New Zealand to discuss that very problem, and therefore it is impossible to say what the total result would be, but it would mean putting up the meat bill of this country by many millions of pounds, and we want to resist that if we can.

Mrs. Hill: Is the right hon. Gentleman importing from New Zealand all the meat which they can let us have, because I understand that is not the position?

Mr. Webb: I am afraid that the hon. Lady's understanding is wrong. We are taking all the meat that New Zealand will send to us. Unfortunately, because of one or two strikes and shipping difficulties, all the shipments which we chartered and expected to get have not in fact arrived. There is also the fact that the price of wool is holding back meat, and that the producers of mutton out there are finding it better to market wool than meat. We are ready to take every ounce of meat that they will send, and if they would send us more we should be very happy indeed to have it.

Mr. Edward Davies: My right hon. Friend has told us about difficulty in controlling the price of perishable commodities and said that what we may gain on the one side we may lose on the other. What we cannot understand, and what the public cannot understand, is why the prices of fish were controlled during the war with great success, but that price control cannot now be applied.

Mr. Webb: While there was adequate control, there was also a serious deterioration in quality, which is one of the things we have to consider. Secondly, it is not a simple matter to introduce controls. The system of controlling the price of fish involves the setting up of an elaborate machine. It requires an equalisation fund and a transport levy throughout the country, assessors of grades at every port the allocation of quotas. It is a most complicated and expensive piece of machinery. We are preparing that machinery and getting it ready, but we do not want to put it into operation unless we are convinced that it is absolutely essential to do so.

Mr. Gammans: In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said about new suggestions coming from the butchers, does that mean that any schemes they put up must be within the ambit of bulk buying, or is he willing to consider the reversion to pre-war practice, if it can be shown that it will give us the meat?

Mr. Webb: We have asked every section of the trade, wholesalers, importers and retailers, to give us their ideas. The retailers want a system of deficiency payments, and we are going to consider that; but the farmers do not like it and have ideas of their own. All these


ideas are being put forward, and we are considering them in relation to our study of the problem. In the light of that study, we shall make our decision and report to the House for it to consider and decide what is to be done.

Mr. Osborne: Since the real solution lies in getting Argentine meat into the country and the other suggestions are only palliatives, and since we are charging the Argentine four times as much for our coal as pre-war, will the right hon. Gentleman consider letting the Argentine have cheaper coal so that they will be able to keep down their prices of meat?

Mr. Webb: I have enough to worry about with meat. I do not want to worry about coal as well.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Arising out of the optimistic view of the right hon. Gentleman in his original statement about the upward trend of the carcase ration, can he say how he hopes to implement this? Is it by increasing supplies from the Argentine or from home production? Upon what grounds did he make that statement?

Mr. Webb: The statement I made was based on the assumption that there will be no South American meat at all. In order to avoid speculation and undue anxiety, I was trying to give to the House a picture of what we regard as the bottom. The increases, if they come, will come when the flush period of production occurs in the Southern Dominions. That is about May, or perhaps a little earlier, and that is what we are looking to for our extra supplies, as well as an increase in supplies of home-killed meat.

Brigadier Thorp: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what would be the price per lb. of meat if we take the price we have been paying for Argentine meat at £90 and agree to pay their price of £140. Would it be an increase of 10d. to ls. 7d. per lb.?

Mr. Webb: I said that I could not give an answer. Everything depends on the total extra amount we had to pay for all our meat, and until we know that I could not give an answer.

Mr. Spearman: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider rearranging the method of buying meat, so as to give people who choose to spend their money on meat rather than on petrol and other things, an opportunity to buy it at a higher price?

Mr. Webb: That would mean the abandonment of the rationing system, and that we are not prepared to do.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On the question of the schemes which the butchers have been invited to put up, does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that over a year ago the Select Committee on Estimates reported that the meat trade was almost unanimously in favour of decontrol, and had already, months before that, put up schemes for decontrol which were never accepted?

Mr. Bossom: In view of the really serious rabbit pest, cannot the Minister arrange for cartridges to be available more cheaply so that the rabbits can be killed and not gassed, and therefore fit for human consumption?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should now get on with the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — NEW STREETS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. Kinley: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Owing to the fact that there are five Private Member's Bills to be considered, all of which should have an opportunity of obtaining a Second Reading, I propose to make a brief statement on this Bill, in the hope that an early decision may be reached and there may be time for the other Bills to be discussed.
We are all fully acquainted with what is an unadopted street, a street which has always lacked any sort of attention. It is a street that is always in need of repair, that is muddy in wet weather and dusty in dry weather and a danger to motorcars. There is nothing in existing legislation to deal with this problem, and it is because of that that this Bill has been produced.
The Bill is simple and straightforward. It declares that, as far as a private builder is concerned, he shall proceed as he always has done, that is to say, he produces his plans and submits them to the appropriate authority, and the authority takes the usual action, with the difference that it is now proposed to impose upon it the additional task that, before the plans are allowed to proceed, it must ascertain the individuals liable to street works under the plans. Having ascertained that, the local authority must then assess their individual liability. It is then the duty of those concerned to place at the disposal of the local authority an amount equal to the estimate for making up and servicing the road.
When this has been done in any of the various forms—it may not necessarily be in cash; it may be done through a banker's guarantee or some other similar method—the builder goes ahead and he has no further responsibility for street services. He has the satisfaction that he has no further liability except as a ratepayer. In the event of the plans being abandoned, which does sometimes happen, the whole thing collapses, and what has been provided for the local authority must be returned.
We agree that local authorities must be allowed some elasticity. We cannot call upon them to proceed at once with the making of a street if building does not warrant that step. So we have made provision whereby a bare majority of the frontagers, either by value or by price, when in their opinion building has proceeded to an extent which would justify the making of the street, can make representations to the local authority to that effect, whereupon the local authority must make up the street. It having been made up, automatically it becomes a public highway maintained by the inhabitants at large. In that way there has been added to the local authority an additional thoroughfare.
That really is the Bill, but we must have additions which are called for by various other requirements. For instance, it has been adjudged possible that the operation of this Bill might increase the amount due to the local authority from the Equalisation Grants Fund. That being so—it is a possibility for which I have not been able to find any reasonable ground, but I cannot contest it—provision is made to cover it in Clause 6. Clause 7 adds any provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, which concern this matter. Clause 8 explains the extent of the Bill, mentioning the local authorities which will be involved, and also makes one important provision to which the House should have its attention drawn although it is not a matter for debate here—the possibility that in certain circumstances the field of operations of the Bill will be extended to include rural authorities and rural areas. That cannot be done except by Order in Council, and only after the consent of Parliament has been obtained. Thus, if any debate on that were considered desirable, I suggest that it should be at a later stage and not this morning. We may save much time thereby.
I have said that this is a simple, straightforward Bill. I have outlined the details of it, and I think I am now justified in asking the House to give it a Second Reading.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: When I first read this Bill, I was very uncertain of the purpose which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) has in mind. It may be a desire to improve


the position of the owner-occupier. If that is his intention, we on this side of the House, who always desire to encourage the owner-occupier, are very glad of some evidence of change of heart on the part of hon. Members opposite. But it seems to me that one of its purposes might be to introduce a little surreptitious sniping against the private enterprise builder. We should certainly not agree with that object, because we on this side of the House are quite convinced that without the help of the private enterprise builder, we shall never solve our present housing problems.
But as I understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman—and here I should like to congratulate him upon the brevity with which he presented the Bill—the main purpose which he has in mind is to ensure that streets are made up expeditiously and that they do not remain in an unmade condition for an undue space of time before the local authority comes on the scene. My experience is that the reason why streets are not made up promptly by the local authority is usually because the frontagers, have a very strong objection to paying the frontage charges.
Under this Bill, the frontagers will still have to pay the frontage charges, but as part of the price they pay for their houses. The position so far as they are concerned remains unchanged. The position of the builder seems likely to be less satisfactory. He will pay the cost of making up the street before the work is done and without any guarantee that it will ever be made up, at any rate within any foreseeable period of time. Indeed, the position may well be that both the purchaser and the builder will find themselves in the position of having paid the costs of making up the street without acquiring any right to secure that the street is made up at all. That may go on for a very long time.

Mr. Kinley: Mr. Kinley indicated dissent.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member shakes his head, but under his Bill the purchaser will have to wait until one-half of the total frontage of the street has been built up, and it is only when that point has been reached that the frontagers are given the right to call upon the local authority to make up the street at all.
I should like to put to the hon. Member another difficulty about this Bill which

occurs to me. The local authority will be required to calculate the road charges before the time when it will have to carry out the work. As I have said, quite a considerable interval may elapse between the time when the assessment is made and the time when the work is carried out. We all know that we are living in a period of fluctuating prices. Since the party to which the hon. Member belongs became responsible for the Government, prices have fluctuated upwards. The time may, of course, come when prices will fluctuate in the opposite direction. But our experience is that costs are rising, particularly the cost of carrying out works of this character. The result may be that there may be a considerable advance in the cost of carrying out the works, above the amount which has been assessed upon the frontagers. Who is to pay the difference?

Mr. Kinley: The local authority.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member says that it will be the local authority. That is the conclusion to which I came. The hon. Member has wisely inserted in his Bill a provision which clearly contemplates that any increase in the cost of the works arising in that way is to be met out of moneys which may eventually increase the Exchequer equalisation grant. That is a very wise provision. Nevertheless, this is the first enactment I have seen which casts on the ratepayers of the district as a whole any part of the cost of making up a private street. Hitherto the principle has been that the frontagers were required to pay. That will be altered as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: There have already been cases where local authorities have very generously made a financial grant to help frontagers who were presented with very heavy bills of this character, in order to relieve the burden upon owner-occupiers. If the Bill is passed, the same spirit will presumably actuate the good local authorities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): As a result of very good and wise planning at Welwyn Garden' City, the whole of the road charges have been on the rates through the whole-period of the town's development, and, none of them against any particular frontagers.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was aware that local authorities, if they so desire, can make a contribution of that character. I said that I was unaware of any enactment which imposed the obligation upon local authorities to make a contribution without their consent. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) did not appreciate the point which I made.
As I have said, the Bill may be of some benefit to the house owner. It is clear that the advantage which he may get from it would be more readily obtained if it were possible to require that every purchaser of a new house should be separately advised by a solicitor at the time of the purchase. That would be a much more satisfactory way of securing for house owners the advantages of which the hon. Member spoke; but it may not be a practicable proposition.
But because this Bill may be of some advantage to house owners, I hope that on this side of the House we shall agree to give it a Second Reading. The Bill may very well have the effect of retarding the building of private enterprise houses when the time comes for private enterprise building to start again. In so far as the Bill is likely to have that effect, I hope that we shall make sure at a later stage that we have safeguarded the position. Although hon. Members on this side of the House are not likely for that reason to be unduly enthusiastic about this small Bill, I hope that they will at any rate agree to give it a Second Reading. Then let us see whether in the Committee stage we can get some of its obvious defects removed.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I am very glad that this Measure has been introduced. In my constituency we have had, I think, the greatest number of new streets made up under the Private Street Works Act of any local authority. A former clerk of the council calculated that Hornchurch had 10 times as many roads made up under that Act as any other authority before the war. We were making up roads at the rate of two a month; I was surprised to hear the comments which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), a borough which one would have thought would have the same sort of problem as Hornchurch.

What is really needed, as is recognised even by Conservatives who have been brought up against the practical facts of the situation, is some such method as is proposed in the Bill of controlling the private building industry, which hon. Gentlemen opposite think has only to be set loose to solve every possible building problem.
This position was realised by Conservative members of the Hornchurch Urban District Council. They promoted in 1936 a Private Bill for this purpose. In fairness to them I must say that those Conservatives were then described as "Ratepayers." Subsequently, the Conservative Party said that they would not support anybody who ran as a Ratepayer and then it happened that practically all those Ratepayer members found that they had been Conservatives all along. But even the few who held out, believing that the Ratepayers should be independent, have also written to me on this subject of private streets. But it was the Labour Party in Hornchurch, although in those years in a minority, who took the lead in trying to control private enterprise in some way.
In consequence what the Hornchurch Council tried to do in 1936 was to secure a Private Act containing very similar provisions to those in the Bill now proposed. Such was the regard that Parliament then had for private enterprise, that the proposal was thought to be too great a restriction on the right of the private builder to exploit the area. The council were only permitted a very meagre arrangement, by which they could see that some hard core or the like was put down. I should like to read to the House the Preamble to the Hornchurch Urban District Council Act, 1936, to show the sort of difficulty that local authorities have had to face. It reads:
Whereas under and in accordance with the provisions of the Private Street Works Act 1892 the rural district council of Romford the predecessors of the Council executed in the year 1912 certain private street works in a road known as Queens Park Road in the parish of Hornchurch and under Section 13 of the Private Street Works Act 1892 became entitled to a charge on the lands fronting adjoining or abutting on the said road including certain lands the owners of which could not he found …
That is the sort of problem that local authorities are up against all the time. Why cannot those owners be found? There are certain developers who, after


they have developed an area, feel that it would be a good thing if they could not be found. We have had a good deal of that sort of thing in Hornchurch.
The Bill will deal with three classes of fraud, all of which were largely practised in Hornchurch. The first was a simple one. The hon. Member is not here who intervened when I raised this matter in the House on the Adjournment, and who said that this first type of fraud was rather difficult to practise. That is true. That is the type of fraud which was practised by, I do not say all builders, and I do not even say the majority of builders in Hornchurch, and possibly not even all builders at present resident in Hornchurch, but by builders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is so. I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should jeer at the builders of Hornchurch. I assure them that the most prominent of them is the chairman of the Conservative Association.
The first of the three types of fraud was that the builders represented that there were no road charges at all. That was a difficult one to get away with. People heard about road charges and heard about other people being in difficulties, and they went off to inquire about them. Early on in the development of Horn-church this simple fraud practically dropped out of use except among very small builders.
The second was to explain that the road charges were quite small. I have evidence about builders who made all sorts of representations--of course, carefully legally safeguarded so that they could not be held to them—that the road charges would only be 10s. or 15s.—this is pre-war—per foot frontage. In Horn-church, without sewers and so on, road charges even pre-war were never less than £2 per foot frontage, so that the person who owned the plot was left to pay the balance.
The third form of fraud, the one with which I hope the Bill will deal, was the simple one by which the developing company gave a guarantee to meet the charges. They said, "Here is your house. When the time comes to build up the road here is our guarantee "—with a bigger seal on it than on the patent medicines which we used to obtain in the old days, the seal of a company with a capital of at least £100 of which certainly

£2 or £3 were paid up—but when that time came the company had probably gone into liquidation. That happened time and time again in my area. The Conservative or Ratepayer Council of Hornchurch were so disturbed at this manifestation of private enterprise that they insisted in cases of this sort that there should not only be the company but also substantial guarantors. There is a case in the Harold Hill Estate of Hornchurch in which the council has come down on the guarantors because of the failure of the developing company to meet the charges.
Nevertheless, "Chase the developer" still remains one of the favourite sports in my constituency. It is a matter of considerable difficulty. I can give an example of the sort of thing that happens in my area. There is an avenue called Sussex Avenue, an unmade road. All the council did to it was to change its name from Dorset Avenue with the object, I think, of associating it more closely with Kent Drive which is not only unmade but has cesspool drainage as well. The state of Sussex Avenue became so bad that a war-disabled man who had lost a leg fell in the road and dislocated his shoulder and broke his arm.
The inhabitants of the road got together to approach the council to see what could be done. The council said. "All you can do is to get in touch with the developer." The inhabitants said. "How do you get in touch with the developer?".The council said "We do not quite know that, but there is a Mr. Hall who knows where the developer is." The deputation went to Mr. Hall and asked where the developer was, and Mr. Hall replied, "He is dead." He added. "But do not worry, he has a partner who is responsible and I can put you in touch with the partner." The deputation said. "Where is the partner?" Mr. Hall replied, "He is a Mr. Tilley. He lives in South Africa." A letter was sent to Mr. Tilley who replied, "Ah, yes, but that is done by my solicitors, a firm domiciled in Wales."
All this was done in an effort just to deal with the problem of clearing the gulleys and of cleaning up an unadopted road. There is not a single ward in my constituency which has not an unadopted road in connection with which


this sort of thing has taken place. This affects not only the working class part of the constituency. Even quite well-to-do people can be had in this way. In Upminster, the smartest part of Horn-church, where in the local elections the Labour Party can hardly ever muster 1,000 votes, there is a large estate where everyone has already paid the development charges, but, unfortunately, the company to which they paid the charges had only a very small capital and went into liquidation before the making up of the road could be completed. Those people paid sufficient development charges to make up the road at the old rate and they are now waiting for the council to assess today's cost of the development.
That is the sort of thing which the Bill will avoid. The Opposition would be very ill-advised indeed if they did not do something in a practical way to protect people against the frauds of the crudest form of private enterprise. However, it is only fair to say that in its crudest form in this respect, private enterprise operated at its best in the working class part of Hornchurch. Even in the centre of Horn-church, in Kent Drive and in Randall Drive, there are roads with no lighting and no sewerage, so that we can see the effect of private development in the centre of a town not 20 miles from Westminster. But it is really in the working class parts where the worst possible effects are observed. Probably the poor people living there in the years of depression were not always able to employ an independent solicitor, and they were probably people who bought a little plot of land on which they hope to build a house.
In the northern part of the Rainham area of Hornchurch the whole layout and the state of the roads are so bad that in the Abercrombie plan the only solution which that great architect and town planner could suggest was that every house should be pulled down and the whole area should be ploughed back again. There is complete confusion there and there has been a complete failure to provide roads. All sorts of promises were made and undertakings given to poor people who were obviously not in a position to know the state of the law. The state of the law is very complicated and

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say a few words to clarify people's minds about it.
In one part of my constituency there is a completely made-up town, South Horn-church, which largely serves the workers in the Ford works area, and there is hardly a made-up street in the area. People who go along the bypass towards Tilbury cannot even tell where the roads lead off except that there is a morass where cars and vehicles have tried to proceed one way or the other. These people are forced to live in these conditions. It is possible to put up with an un-made road in rural areas because it may not be used very much, but such roads as these have to be used every day by people going backwards and forwards to work. These roads are unlighted at night and filled with great pools of water. It is an absolutely disgraceful and disgusting state of affairs.
I have a final word about private development in this area. In one case the private developers did not even bother to build a bridge over a stream which ran across the main road. There is only one thing I can say in order to give private enterprise its due; the stream is now spanned by a single plank. This plank, about which I have been making inquiries because it was washed away in a flood, is the result of private munificence rather than municipal enterprise. Except for that, I know of no single contribution by private enterprise towards doing anything at all to provide roads for the ordinary working-class people of my constituency.
Of course, this Bill does not cover the whole problem of the making-up of roads. One of the more difficult problems is that regard at the moment is not a question of the local machinery for it, but the capital expenditure required. However, we are not on that subject at the moment. There will be other opportunities of discussing some of the social consequences of the rearmament programme, but that does not arise on this Bill. This at any rate does provide machinery to prevent the sort of things happening which have happened up and down my constituency. Had this Bill been in existence 20 years ago or even had it been possible in the case of the Hornchurch Urban District Council to get a similar provision in the Hornchurch Urban District Council Act,


1936, then there would not be a single unmade road in Hornchurch today.

12 noon.

Mr. Braine: As I wish only to make one or two very brief points, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument, though I would say that I thought one so gifted as he is in picking holes in any argument would have devoted a little time to some of the obvious deficiencies in the Bill before the House.
My constituency comprises four urban districts. As the Parliamentary Secretary and I well know, it has a very large number of unmade roads. One district has some 30 unmade roads and another has more than 50; and therefore this Bill, if it becomes law, will have direct application to my constituency. The first point I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that the operative date is 1st July of this year. When I read the Bill I thought that was a little early, and I consulted my local authorities on the subject. The general consensus of opinion is that the Bill as at present drafted would require a local authority to have its plans prepared, and to be ready to carry out a large part of the private streets works procedure for all private streets in the area by 1st July.
I am advised that, however desirable are the measures propounded in the Bill, no urban district council will be in a position to do that by 1st July without taking on a very large number of additional staff. One authority tells me that in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill as at present drafted, they will need between 30 and 40 additional assistants. That, I think, is putting a rather heavy burden upon the local authorities at the present time.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Member one question? These are practical points. Did he ascertain what these gentlemen would be doing either before or after 1st July—these 20 or 30 additional assistants?

Mr. Braine: It is quite clear from the Bill that the local authorities concerned would be under an obligation as from 1st July to put these measures into operation, and in order to do that—

Mr. Mitchison: No.

Mr. Braine: I am reassured, but the object, surely, of a Second Reading debate is to elucidate these points.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him once more, because I think he is on a false point which can easily be met. Of course, local authorities at present have to be prepared to operate the Private Street Works Act. They are all doing it. What I should like to know is, what additional staff would this impose on them, and why?

Mr. Braine: I am advised that in one particular instance it would require, as I say, 30 to 40 additional assistants. I can only assume that a local authority, faced with obligations of this kind—the possibility that a large number of frontagers living in a large number of unmade roads would require them to be made up when the Act becomes operative —would have to add substantially to its staff.

Mr. Lindgren: I agree with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) that his constituency is one of the examples of all the things that ought not to have happened in the past; but he is evidently assuming that this Bill refers to the making good of that damage; whereas I am assuming, after reading the Bill, that it applies only to the future. If in fact it applied to what has happened in the constituency of the hon. Member under private enterprise in the past, it would take hundreds and hundreds of engineers, surveyors, workmen and everyone else. But it applies to the future, and not the past.

Mr. Braine: I do not accept that for one moment. A large number of people came to my constituency to live seeking privacy, and unmade roads exist for the very good reason mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), that they preferred not to pay the frontage charges. As I understand this Bill, as from 1st July any number of frontagers occupying an area of a length of 100 feet may make application to the local authority for the provisions of this Bill, once it has become an Act, to be put into operation. When one bears in mind that in constituencies like mine there are many unmade roads at least half a mile in length—some of them


longer—one can see certain other difficulties emerging.
Supposing, for example, frontagers at the far end of an unmade road which might end in a cul de sac, make application to the local authority for this procedure to be put into operation. As I understand it—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—the local authority is then under an obligation to make up that part of the road. I do not know what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) is laughing at. The Bill is so ill drafted and ill considered that anybody who will have the responsibility of putting it into operation must consider these things. It would be better for the hon. Member to contain himself for the time being until these matters have been threshed out. That, after all, is the object of my intervention. A local authority in such a case will be put to the additional cost of connecting up sewers through an area that is not made up. That will impose a heavy charge. These are difficulties which I suggest have not been foreseen by the framers of the Bill.
For my part, I think that the principle behind the Bill is an excellent one and I would certainly support it on Second Reading; but there are a number of points which need elucidation. For example, the powers given to magistrates seem to be far too wide. In Clause 2 (6) magistrates may specify some sum which has no relation to the probable cost and may well add to the burden of the local authority. Again, are the estimates which a local authority will have to prepare to be based on present-day costs, or are they to take into account continually rising prices? It may take many years before an unmade road is made up and the figures may be unrealistic. Yet a magistrate is given the responsibility, the power, to specify certain sums, which may have the result of placing additional and very heavy burdens on local authorities. I am wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply would make some reference to that.

Mr. Bing: Is the hon. Member for Billericay dealing with the point that when a road is made up, it is, of course, used not only by those who live in it but by the inhabitants at large, by people

from other areas? It is a little hard that the inhabitants of a road in my constituency should bear the whole cost of traffic backwards and forwards to Southend.

Mr. Braine: That, of course, is an argument which I at once accept, but it has no relevance at all to any criticism of the Bill which I have advanced.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, surely, when the cost to the frontagers is being discussed, one of the factors to be taken into consideration in assessing whether any sum should fall on the rates or not is the other use to which the road will be put, other than use by the frontagers?

Mr. Lindgren: That is already done.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Hargreaves: I wish to speak in support of this Bill and to say that if any hon. Member who is concerned about the effect of the Bill on his own constituency, in which there may be a very large number of unmade roads, will read the Preamble to the Bill, he will see that it refers to the completion of streets in connection with new buildings. Surely that fully meets the point which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) made when referring to roads which are unmade and unadopted alongside houses which have been erected for a considerable number of years. I understood that to be the point which the hon. Gentleman was making.
This is an attempt to legislate for the future in regard to any new building which is proposed, and it will not in any way meet the admitted difficulties which confront owner-occupiers, whose present difficulties are an argument in favour of the Bill and for eliminating these difficulties in future.
May I describe a typical case, of an owner-occupier, which was put up to me as soon as this Bill was printed? It is the case of an owner-occupier who erected a house in Carlisle less than 20 years ago. With her mother, who has since died, she built the house at a complete cost of £654. It is a very small house, and the road charges which she and her mother had to meet were paid at that time to an estate company. This case illustrates the circumstances described by my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). Now, when new building is being carried on in that particular road, this lady, who has no other resources, having paid some sum which she understood was to cover the road frontage charges, is faced with the cost of making up that particular road. I have the figures provided for me by the town clerk of Carlisle in respect of this small house. The town clerk says:
Her share of making up the road fronting her house—
for a house which originally cost £654—
will be £360.
In addition to that, the owner of these premises, which are situated in Brampton Road, will be called upon—and I am quoting the letter from the town clerk:
… to bear the cost of flagging the unflagged footpath in Brampton Road whenever the Corporation decide that it should he made up.
That is the situation confronting this lady, and it means that, in all, she may be called upon to pay an equivalent amount to that which she and her mother paid almost 20 years ago for the erection of this house.

Mr. Hutchinson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the frontage of this property to be made up, because that is the important factor?

Mr. Hargreaves: It is 120 feet. It is a corner site on the corner of Brampton Road and Croft Road.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is an exceptional case for a house of this size to have a frontage of 120 feet?

Mr. Hargreaves: I am making the legitimate point that this Bill, while being in no way retrospective, is attempting to meet an admitted need. I make the point that this kind of situation which confronts these owner-occupiers would be removed under this Bill, because it would be met at the time the house was actually built.

Mr. Hutchinson: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, but of course the house would cost a great deal more than £650.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am not contesting that but, again, I am making the point that a payment in respect of road charges was made to an estate company. It was a separate payment when this house was

erected, and it was —[Interruption]—I could quote the full correspondence, which is available to the hon. and learned Gentleman. That payment was made to the company in respect of road frontage charges, and this lady is confronted at this time, when she is left alone, with this frightful charge.
Although, as my hon. and learned Friend and others have said, the Corporation of Carlisle, which is by no means ungenerous, has a discretion which it can exercise to relieve frontagers of the whole or part of the street formation charges, the council has decided—and I do not think it is unfair—as a matter of principle, that it cannot exercise this discretion.
Having made that case, which I could, duplicate—because I know of at least another similar case, and I am certain that other hon. Members are in possession of similar facts—I hope the House will give general support to the principle behind this Bill and help to remove for the future, shocking cases of the kind that I have indicated.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I must confess that, when I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), for whose ability in presenting a case I have great respect, I thought he was speaking about the contents of the Bill, but I was very much misled, because I realised afterwards that what he said bore no relevance to the subject matter which we are discussing, which is the question of roads which are to be built in the future.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, all the Members of his party always take the view that we can never discuss the future in terms of the past, and in view of their record that is understandable. Surely, we ought to look at what has happened in the past and in the light of this see whether the Bill is necessary or not.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made the situation quite clear, and we recognise that he is now making an attempt to face the future, which he has so singularly failed to do in the last few years.
I also listened with great attention to the last speech in support of the Bill, but


there again, the only relevant subject was a similar sort of illustration, following on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, on the subject of what it was hoped might be avoided in future. In regard to that illustration, it must be pointed out that that was an exceptional case, and what it really illustrates is the tremendous difference between the cost of road-making at that time and today. In order to produce a road alongside a frontage of 120 feet today, the contribution from the frontager may even be approximately equivalent to the cost of the whole house 20 years ago. I do not really think that the matter was carried appreciably further.
The point I cannot understand about the reason for bringing this Bill forward at the present time is that, so far as I can see—and I am subject to correction on this—the Bill is intended to relate almost entirely to future building by private enterprise, and as I understood it the policy of the hon. Members who are promoting the Bill is that there shall not be building by private enterprise, but building by local authorities. The vast majority of the building which is permitted by the Government at the present time—and which is admittedly of a very limited amount—would not be affected by this Bill in the least. I may be wrong, but that is my interpretation of the situation as it stands at present.
If, as I think, that is so, then this is an even more modest little Bill than we originally anticipated. As far as it goes, I do not think it is likely to do any appreciable amount of harm, but I am very sceptical indeed about the detailed provisions in part of it. I do not think that they carry out the intention that the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading very clearly stated to be his object in promoting the Bill. I believe that the details will require exceedingly careful consideration, but, in so far as the hon. Member's intention is recognised, and in so far as it is clear that the Bill is a direct denial of the Government's policy to continue building houses purely through local authorities, and in the hope that it will reveal the possibility of our being able to get some private enterprise building, I for one, shall certainly not object to the Second Reading.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I was grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), for the support he was willing to give to the Bill, notwithstanding some of the difficulties he found about the details of it, and it is in no carping spirit that I will answer some of the objections which have been put forward. May I follow the hon. and learned Member's example, and that of other hon. Members, and take the three classes of people who are obviously affected by this Bill?
I was always told that theological hate was the worst kind. I thought there were today signs of a suburban hate which almost exceeded that of the theologians, and I rather deprecate that. I should have thought that builders were human unless they were limited companies. Of course, limited companies have a capacity for dying in a short time, which we would not wish to see emulated by the human race, but the majority of builders, no doubt, do their job. When they do their job, they consider it incumbent upon them to provide a proper road on a new estate which they are building or to provide access to a new house or group of houses which they are building.
If I may deal with the good builder first, when he does his work and sells the house to someone, he must include in the cost of that house the cost of proper street-building work. The intention of this Bill is, in fact, to secure that that shall be done in future. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, has great experience in these things. With his usual clearness of thought—although he made one or two observations of a contentious character—he quite rightly stated that the effect of the Bill will be to do what is done by good builders at the present time, and to put the cost of the necessary road work on to the original price of the house.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not forget that I went on to say that, although the cost of making up the road should be added to the price of the house, there was nothing in the Bill to ensure that the road would, in fact, be made up in any foreseeable period of time.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, the hon. and learned Member, with his usual sense


of logic, will see that that is not a question which affects the builder, but is one between the council and the house owner. If he will allow me, I shall come to that in a minute.
I entirely agree that there are bad builders. They may be bad by intention or bad through poverty, but it does happen that even a good builder, if I may so put it, bites off more than he can chew and embarks upon enterprises which he is unable properly to complete. Whether it is because he is deliberately fraudulent or whether he miscalculates the amount he can manage, it is, unfortunately, exceedingly common—and I think we all know it—for frontagers to be put in the position of having a nominal recourse against some builder or developer and being, in fact, unable to enforce it. That is another difficulty that we want to meet. Surely, the fairest way in those cases, and the fairest way to the good builder and to the building trade as a whole, is to make the payment of the proper road charge contemporaneous with and conditional on the actual house building, and that is the intention of the Bill.
Now I come to the owner's position. The trouble about the owner is, first of all, that he wants to know when he buys a house what he will have to pay, and under present conditions there are two reasons why he may fail to know this. He may be misled or mistaken as to the character and extent, and even as to the existence, of these road charges, which depend on a very complicated series of Acts, including not only the Private Street Works Act and other legislation, but also quite a number of local Acts, the existence of which, I rather thought, the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, somewhat overlooked. It is really important for the private owner to know about such Acts.
Secondly, even if everybody's intentions are good, he does not, in fact, know what the charges will prove to be. It is perfectly true that the cost of the necessary road works may go up or may go down. I am not here today to speculate what is more likely in the immediate future, or to make party points about that, but as a matter of principle it is only fair that the risk of a rise or a fall in street work charges should not be placed to a very heavy degree on quite a small number of

people, as it is at present in that kind of case.
We were given an example just now of an owner having to pay a very heavy charge. I have had some share in suggesting the framing of this Bill and I have supported it because, like other hon. Members, I have had this kind of thing in my own constituency, which does not happen to be a London constituency. Sometimes the people concerned are not the original owners of the house at all. They bought it some time after it was built and they naturally concluded that they had met substantially all the expenditure they either desired or were able to pay.
Then the council, in the exercise of its public duty and under the Private Street Works Act or some similar piece of legislation, may call upon these people to pay what is at present an exceedingly heavy charge in proportion to the price of their houses. That does not seem to be fair or right under the ordinary principles of justice and a risk of that sort ought to be borne by the local authority who, after all, have to carry a similar responsibility and risk with regard to the ordinary public streets within their area.
I should have thought that, on all sides, we could agree that the continued existence of unadopted streets and of private streets is not a good thing from the point of view of the council. It is not a good thing from the point of view of the inhabitants. Though one or two remarks have been made to the contrary, I do not believe it is a good thing from the point of view of the frontagers themselves; and I should not think that any public-spirited person really thinks that private streets, at any rate in the vast majority of cases, have anything to be said for them. This Bill is put forward to facilitate the task of the local authorities in clearing up what has become a considerable hardship for quite a large class of people.
Therefore, I think that the good builder and the householder and the house buyer will be definitely better off for what is now proposed. I think, too, that the councils themselves, who, after all, are public-spirited bodies, will recognise, as I believe they do, the hardships involved in the present administration and the consequent difficulty upon the councils themselves and upon their officers in having to operate this, and that they will really welcome the Bill.
It was suggested that there would be a long delay in making up these streets. I hope and believe the contrary. There is, of course, the delay in this respect that no one can really require wholly inordinate and disproportionate expenditure on streets at present. There are other matters to be considered, notably and obviously house building. One recognises that, and there is and there will continue inevitably a degree of Ministerial control on total expenditure. But within the limits of that expenditure, it will be open to a majority of frontagers, not merely of streets as a whole but of quite a short part of street, even 100 yards, to move the council to do the job, for which the money has been paid or secured. Moreover, the council's power to act on their own under the Private Street Works Act remains un-repealed and it is open to the council to operate in that way if and when this Bill becomes law, just as it has been open to them heretofore to do so.
I beg the House, therefore, to look at this matter, which really seems to me to be quite non-contentious as between one side of the House and another, as a sincere attempt to be fair to all parties concerned. I ask the House to look at it, as we all try to do, from a public point of view and to consider whether, even in its present terms, it is not a contribution on a not unimportant point towards local Government machinery and a real contribution towards alleviating some private hardship.
Many Committee points have been raised, and at the moment, when we are engaged on the Second Reading, one does not want to go into them too far. I welcome the general benevolence expressed from the Benches opposite and I hope the Bill will get a Second Reading, subject, of course, to Committee points which hon. Members may wish to raise afterwards. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give full credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) for having done his best for all concerned and tried to remedy a public mischief and some private hardship.

12.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): May I, first of all, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for

Bootle (Mr. Kinley) and those associated with him upon their initiative in regard to this Bill? The discussion this morning has shown that the Bill has arisen and its urgency for the future springs from the speculative building that went on, particularly in the 1930's. As a result of what went on in the '20's and '30's, practically all over the country, people are faced with excessive charges for the making up of roads. Although some hon. Members opposite rather twitted him, I thought that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said was true and could be repeated with regard to any other constituency up and down this country.

Mr. John Hay: When the hon. Gentleman said "excessive charges," does he mean to imply that the local authorities are asking for far greater charges than they ought to have done?

Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Member twits me, I will give it him straight from the shoulder. These poor people are being twisted. They now have to pay again moneys already paid to builders who cannot be found now. These poor folk in and around London, in particular, were charged by speculative builders £50 and £100 road charges in 1928, 1929 and 1933, etc. It was quite obvious that for a period these roads could not be made up. All folk are reasonable and in a newly-developed area they do not expect the road to be made up within six months.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a very general charge against the building industry. Surely he recognises that the cases which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) cited are exceptional cases?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not making a charge against the building industry. Sometimes it was the builders. More often it was investment trusts, mushroom companies which took the road charges and went out of existence or sometimes, within 12 months of completion of the site, went bankrupt.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that hundreds of thousands of houses were built in London where that never happened at all?

Mr. Lindgren: Of course, I admit that.

Mr. Hutchinson: Does, not the hon. Gentleman then consider that the general charge he is making against the developers of these houses is a very unfair charge?

Mr. Lindgren: No, I do not. I can quite understand hon. Gentlemen opposite getting touchy, because it is not a very creditable part of estate development in the inter-war years, and something ought to have been done by Governments during those years to prevent it. Year after year at Urban District Councils Association and other conferences we were pointing out the responsibility that was falling upon individuals and upon local authorities because of the failure of estate developers, and the hardship that it was causing to householders.
Reference was made by hon. Members opposite to private enterprise and the need of private ownership of houses. Private ownership is a very commendable thing and quite a number of people went in for it in the inter-war years. There have been these small weekly payments and all the rest of it. Very often there has been a bit of a racket with a second mortgage which the poor person who took the single mortgage did not know about. There were cases like that of Mrs. Border's in the inter-war years, and the then Government ought to have dealt with this problem. This Bill deals with the problem for the future.
Most of my activity in local government in the past 20 years has been at Welwyn Garden City, building the new town. There I think we did the logical thing. Under the 1892 Act we used our powers to spread the cost over the community and we made every road a direct charge upon the ratepayer. We could do that because we were fortunate. We started with God's green fields, with no buildings there. Local authorities could do it even today. But, of course, there is strong objection, particularly in well-developed areas, that we should be putting on to ratepayers who have already paid their own charges a charge in respect of new people coming into the area. From the general concept of fairness, there is a lot to be said against that. But to me, at least, this is the most logical and sensible way to do this work.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) mentioned the poor unfortunate person who had a corner site. His

case is an example of what I have just said. The heavy road charge on the corner site is left as a charge of £320 on the local authority. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) started to twit us and to make play with the fact that road frontage charges had risen by an abnormal extent and he said that that was the cause of the trouble. If on this corner site the frontage is 120 feet, that works out at a cost of only £3 per foot. Even before the war a large number of road charges were at the rate of £2 per foot.

Mr. Hay: That is why it is not excessive.

Mr. Lindgren: I agree. The Carlisle authority evidently do their work economically. From the point of view of Carlisle, it is not an excessive charge. But in view of that case, will not hon. Members opposite agree that one ought to take some measures to prevent a condition arising in which any individual has to pay twice for a service? That is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Bing: Does not my hon. Friend also agree that it is most important that there should not be any opportunity for a development company to make a representation, in order to sell such a site, that the building charge will only be a small amount, to charge that amount, and then leave, so that after they have disappeared the owner of the plot finds out that he has been dealt with in this way?

Mr. Lindgren: Certainly. I thought that I had said that a little earlier. This Bill prevents that, and it places upon the local authority the responsibility of collection of the dues before the work starts. At the moment private street works come under two Acts. In the main, under urban authorities they come under the Act of 1892, if the authorities have adopted it. Under rural authorities, they come under the 1892 Act by virtue of the Local Government Act, 1929. In urban areas which have not adopted the 1892 Act, or which have not varied it by reason of some local Act as Horn-church wanted to do, the Public Health Act, 1875, applies.
This has meant that, in spite of all the work done in the past in the nature of public street works, people have the difficulty which I have tried to expound


with emphasis. To put it calmly, people have been up against a real difficulty, and sometimes there has been real danger to life and limb. This Bill will prevent that. On behalf of the Government, I commend the Bill to the House and ask hon. Members to give it a Second Reading. Despite the problems which have been raised about whether or not the Bill is clear, I think that it is a well-drafted Bill. There may be some matters to be dealt with in Committee. We will deal with them and try to improve the Bill and to put right anything which is not exactly clear.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has returned to the Chamber. I wish to deal with the points he raised. Obviously he was under the impression that local authorities in his constituency would be asked to put right all the ills of the past. As I have said so often, though he may disagree with me from time to time, his constituency is one of the best examples that I know of where everything that it was possible to do wrong was done wrong. We ought to protect the public on this question. I could understand the local authorities in his area—or he himself—if they thought that all these things had to be put right under this Bill, getting a little alarmed.
In fact, we have decided to build a new town in his constituency with all the resources of the State behind it, because no local authority, not even the county council, could bear the financial cost of putting right the ills of his area. He has the honour of having the whole resources of the Treasury behind his constituency to put right the wrongs of private enterprise in the past. That ought to be something of which he should be proud. There are very few hon. Members who can say that their constituency is so favoured as to have the whole resources of the Treasury behind it.

Mr. Braine: The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to make his points in his own way, and I accept his remarks in the spirit in which he has made them; but the fact is that at no time since the end of the war has there been any freedom for private developers to operate in the area concerned. Therefore, a new town was the only solution offered to the

people in the area. The point which I hoped he would answer is that in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill, it says:
the local authority shall estimate the cost of carrying out such street works in the street on which the building will front (and throughout the whole width thereof) …
In other words, that must include the cost of making up the road where buildings already exist.

Mr. Lindgren: No. I am not a lawyer and I will not attempt to define words. I would not attempt to interpret the words which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has collaborated with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, has suggested. But this applies to the future and it applies to all the persons in the road—they get their apportionment of the cost. If, in fact, the apportionment means that there is a length of the road which is not chargeable to an individual, because there is nothing actually fronting it, then that lies as a balance on the local authority. It lies with the ratepayers at large, pending a capital payment later on, as and when some person takes advantage of the frontage which has been created earlier. So the individual is saved from paying a charge over and above that which ought to be borne in respect of his own frontage.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? In the case he has just been putting, if a new property is erected in the street the owner of the new property will pay the development charge before building starts, but there is no guarantee that the street will ever be made up within any measurable period of time, because the other properties in the street are existing properties, and the time when the street will be made up will be determined by the local authority under the Private Street Works Acts and not under this Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not going to argue a technical legal point with a learned King's Counsel such as the hon. and learned Gentleman, but my assumption from this Bill is—and it refers to where one payment is made—that in this instance where the first payment has been made for the new house in the street there should be a requirement to make the road—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my understanding of it. We can discuss it in Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: Will my hon. Friend allow me for one moment? Will he, with his great experience of local government, accept what seems to me to be the position about charges and the appeal to the court which troubled the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), that, in fact, as regards the powers and the charges and the machinery for having them reviewed by the court—all that follows the Private Street Works Acts and long-established legislation and long-established rights of appeal? It is the timing that is changed by the Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: That is so, and I think it is politic. Of course, there are two different methods under the Acts of 1875 and 1892. Under the 1875 Act, the majority of persons in the road—the majority in number in the area—may ask a local authority to do up the road. Under the 1892 Act, it is the majority in value of the houses who can demand that the road be made up. But there is power even now, and from experience I should say that the vast majority of urban authorities are working under the 1892 Act, unless they have some Private Acts themselves, rather than under the 1875 Act; and there the greater number by value may require the road to be made up.
I ought to have said—and it may mitigate, perhaps, some of the criticisms in the earlier part of my speech about how it has been 20 years since the houses were built and the roads have been left and the people have suffered discomfort from mud, and so on—that there were six years of war in which nothing was possible at all. We have had a period since the end of the war when, by Defence Regulation, there has been a requirement for local authorities to get sanction to do the work. I should not like to create the impression by what I have said that nothing has been done by the local authorities.

Mr. Braine: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that since the decision to establish a new town in my constituency, that decision has frozen all developments in that part of the Billericay urban district.

Mr. Lindgren: I was going to leave the hon. Gentleman alone and not make too many cracks.

Mr. Braine: He is making too many cracks now.

Mr. Lindgren: Too many in what little shacks there are in that area, where before the war we ought not to have allowed building of that sort. Equally true, there was no such construction—

Mr. Braine: Quite untrue.

Mr. Lindgren: I would invite the hon. Gentleman's friends to visit his constituency, perhaps to speak for him, and so be able to see for themselves and judge between him and me to know which of us is indulging in exaggeration.

Mr. Braine: It is quite untrue. And the proof is that once there was a Labour controlled Council, but that has been completely turned out because of the disgust of the local residents with the Government up here at Westminster.

Mr. Lindgren: I do not want to get the hon. Gentleman into trouble with the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) sitting behind him, because I can see she is looking anxious, but—

Mr. Braine: She can look after herself.

Mr. Lindgren: Well, I think she can, too. That anxiety which was created was very largely created by the hon. Gentleman and his friends, and it has diminished more and more as people in the area have come to see the light. I was delighted to see the local chambers of commerce passed a resolution of appreciation after they had had the real facts explained to them and had been disabused of the wrongly emphasised facts which the hon. Gentleman had put to them. That was when the general manager of the new town went and explained everything to them.

Mr. Braine: On the contrary, I must not allow these charges to be thrown across the Floor of the House in this fashion. They are, of course, utterly irrelevant to the Bill under consideration. However, the doubt and misgivings in the locality were due to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, on 15th May last, made statements in this House which he not since repudiated.

Mr. Lindgren: I have seen you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, looking rather anxiously at the hon. Gentleman. I do not want


you to look so anxiously at me. I think we had better leave it there, although I do not in any way accept the statements made. We can return to the Bill.
What I was about to say was that I should not like to create the impression that the local authorities up and down the country had not done all they could within the limits of the materials and labour available. Loan sanctions had been given to them, and, in fact, last year something like £1 million was spent by the local authorities in bringing the underdeveloped roads into a developed state, and making them chargeable to the ratepayers at large.
As I said at the beginning, this is a Bill which we think is quite a good Bill, worthy of consideration by the House and well worthy of consideration in Committee—a Bill designed to prevent the worst effects of things which happened in the inter-war years. I commend it to the House and ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: There is one aspect of this Bill which has not been touched on in the debate and is worthy of just one moment's consideration before the House expresses its view on the Bill. The Clause I have particularly in mind is Clause 6, which, as the House, will see, is printed in italics. Before I make the observation I want to make about Clause 6 let me say that, for myself, I commend the principle of the Bill to the House because it seems to me to be something eminently desirable in the public interest apart altogether from the interests of the parties immediately concerned.
This Bill, as I understand it, embodies the principle that the local authorities should have the wherewithal to enable them to make certain that new streets are made up at an early date rather than, as is sometimes the case, postponed for a variety of reasons for an inordinately long time. One knows from one's own experience the very considerable public inconvenience and sometimes public danger that has resulted from long delays in making up new streets. I am familiar with a number of cases in London—and there are many more outside London—where the public interest has suffered because of the delay after the building of

the houses before a proper highway has been laid out.
Therefore, the principle of this Bill affects not merely the frontages of the houseowners and the local authorities, but all members of the community who use new streets, and it is obviously very desirable that as soon as new streets are laid out and new houses built upon it the public should have the right to use those streets in a properly made up condition. I do not want to elaborate the reasons which in the past have militated against that desirable state of affairs, but I do congratulate those who have promoted this Bill upon their ingenuity and the skill with which they have thought out this device and this machinery, which will put an end to what I have for a long time past regarded as a serious public inconvenience.
It seems to me that, although it may well be that under this Bill local authorities and ratepayers may be out of pocket for a time, there is not a great deal of risk as far as local authorities are concerned because, as I understand the Bill, they are protected adequately. I gather that some are not entirely happy about that, and that is why I wanted to draw attention to Clause 6. I understand that Clause 6 is printed in italics because it is the one Clause of the Bill which may involve some public expense. As the House knows, a Private Members' Bill of this kind cannot normally make a great deal of progress if it involves expenditure out of public funds unless it has the backing of His Majesty's Government. That result only arises from the new system of accountability, equalisation and Exchequer Grants between Whitehall and local authorities resulting from the Local Government Act, 1948.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that under this Bill, in the event of an increase in costs during the interval between the time when the first assessments are made and the time when work is actually done, it will fall upon the local authority. It is for that reason that Clause 6 has been inserted.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that, and if I may say so, I think that is correct.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) is correct. Both he and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine)


put the point to me in regard to the portion of the road which would need to be financed by local authorities prior to there being frontages on it. It would mean that works were being carried out in advance of payment which would normally come to a local authority. This covers the extra cost an authority would have to bear on those two items, which naturally affects the possibility of an Exchequer Grant.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that exchange has clarified the extent to which the provisions of this Bill may involve some charge on public funds. Had this Bill been introduced prior to 1948 there would in no circumstances have been any risk of expenditure out of central Government funds, because before 1948 the whole of the resulting expenditure under a Bill of this kind would have fallen on the rates. It is by virtue of the new rating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, whereby the Government in effect become either a ratepayer or a potential ratepayer in a great many localities, that we now have a constitutional change which is important not only in connection with this Bill but in connection with all Bills.
The House will understand what has happened since 1948. Whenever local authorities are empowered to provide new services or to incur new expenditure, or whenever new burdens or possible new burdens, however limited in extent as in this Bill, are imposed by Parliament upon local authorities, one of the things that results from the Local Government Act, 1948, is that in the case of a certain number of local authorities that burden which previously would have fallen exclusively upon the local authority concerned is now shared by the contribution made by the Revenue.
I am not for a moment saying that that is a bad thing, because I support the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948. But subsequently we found in the case of one Bill which came before the House soon afterwards that there was a considerable risk of the rights of Members of this House being thereby prejudiced, and that is why I want to ask those who are responsible for this Bill in its subsequent stages to make quite sure that the Financial Resolution is drawn in the appropriate form, because if this Bill is to make further progress there will have to be a Financial Reso-

lution. What I am anxious to ensure is that the terms of that Financial Resolution are drawn sufficiently widely to enable this particular point to be considered in Committee.
I have no doubt that when this Bill reaches the Committee stage, Amendments of different kinds will be put down, as they always are in Committee, and if may be that some Amendments will be made which, directly or indirectly, might have the effect of adding to the financial liabilities of local authorities, to which the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) has just referred. Under the constitutional position as it existed before 1948 it would have been perfectly competent, either in a Government Bill or a Private Member's Bill being considered in Committee after the necessary Financial Resolution was passed, for private Members to put down Amendments even though those Amendments would have had the effect of increasing the financial responsibility falling on the local authorities.
Soon after the passage of the 1948 Act, it was realised by virtue of this new system whereby the Government could automatically, in certain cases, increase the expenditure of local authorities, that, under the rules of this House, the previous right of Members of Parliament to put down an amendment to Bills of this kind was jeopardised, because under the new system introduced in 1948 any additional charge falling on the local authority automatically attracted some additional charge on the National Exchequer. Under our rules of procedure, no such amendment could be made unless it was covered by the appropriate Financial Resolution.
It will be within the recollection of some Members of this House that when this matter was first raised in 1949, I drew attention to it and obtained an assurance from the Minister of Labour, who was then the Minister of Health and who was put in charge of the Local Government Act and subsequent Measures dealing with local government, that the necessary alteration would be made to preserve the rights and privileges of hon. Members in the Committee stages.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): This seems to be rather outside the Bill. It is all about procedure on Money Resolutions.

Mr. Fletcher: I willingly accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I do not want to develop that matter any further. I wanted to make this point because I was hoping that as it is one of some importance it would be borne in mind by those in charge of the Bill at this stage or at the appropriate stage. I only mention it so that it should not be overlooked. I want to say how very cordially I support the principles of the Bill, and I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Standing Committee.

DESERTED WIVES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.15 p.m.

Mrs. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope to follow the example of the mover of the previous Bill and not take up too much time, because of those who are to follow me. This Bill is an effort to deal with a very real and pressing problem, and the many letters which I have received show me that it is a problem which affects many women.
It is a privilege to have the honour of presenting this Bill. I am sure that all Members of the House have at some time or other, dealt with very distressing cases of the break-up of the matrimonial home and of family life. All of us who have had a happy family life can have much sympathy with these people in their difficulties. It is to try to alleviate this distress that I welcome this opportunity, in a small measure, of bringing some relief. I am quite aware that the Bill may perhaps not cover all the cases of difficulty that there are, and in fact I know that it does not, but if it focuses interest on these particular problems and further legislation can put other anomalies right, I shall feel that my time has not been wasted.
It is intended by this Bill to ensure that a woman resident in the house of which her husband is the tenant, if she has obtained a court order against him, shall have the tenancy transferred to her. I am aware that early last year there was a case decided in the Court of Appeal—

a case in which I know one of the parties concerned—and by that decision the wife can remain in the house of which her husband is the tenant, and he cannot turn her out. I want to make quite sure that it is the law Apt the wife may have the tenancy of the house in her own right. I think that a woman will feel much happier if she knows that she is the tenant of the house and is not merely there on sufferance because her husband is the tenant. There is rather more security in feeling that one's name is in the rent book.
The decision which was given in the case which I have just mentioned would not really prevent the husband from coming back to the house of which he is still the tenant and bringing a mistress there. The wife would be powerless to prevent him, as he is the tenant. If the wife were the tenant, her name being in the rent book, in the situation which I have mentioned she would have full right as the tenant and the privilege of saying who should or should not enter her house. I recognise that by giving her the rights as the tenant, she would, of course, have her obligations to the landlord.
I am hoping that if this Bill is passed, and if these anomalies are corrected, the people who benefit by them will endeavour to observe their due obligations. It has been suggested to me that the Bill might be some obstacle to reconciliation, but that is not so. If reconciliation proved practicable at some future time, then everything could be arranged satisfactorily. One thing that occurs to me is that the Bill might be found to be a deterrent to some possible wayward husband.
I want to mention the position of council houses, which the Bill cannot really touch. As a member of a local authority, I am well aware of the different position which they are in compared with the landlord under the Rent Restriction Acts. I make a point of mentioning this at this stage in the hope that local authorities will give the same consideration to cases brought to their notice as others will be required to give under the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law. I am a member of a housing committee, and I know the difficulties which can arise, and that all local authorities do not administer


their affairs in the same way. If a wife is granted an order, it is usual for her to ''be given the custody of the children. I think that hon. Members do not need to be reminded of the difficulty of a wife who may feel that she must get out of a house and try to find other accommodation. We are all anxious that family life should be preserved and that there should be a home for the children. Because of that, I feel that hon. Members cannot do other than support the Bill.
I now come to the second part of the Bill. The wife having been given the tenancy of the house, the benefit of that would be nullified if the husband were allowed to take away the furniture. Many of the letters which I have received point out that that has been done. I think I am right in saying that during the last few years, housewives have contributed more to household goods than perhaps in the past, although I am aware that to a certain extent that is true of many housewives even in those days.
I know, from comments that have been made by Members on both sides of the House, that the Bill involves a difficulty, and I am most anxious to meet any points of difficulty. It is suggested in the Bill that courts of summary jurisdiction should apportion chattels, and I am advised that it would be better for the county court to have the matter put in their hands. I am not quibbling about this criticism. My concern is that provision should be made whereby the housewife will not only be able to have the things she can vouch she has paid for, but that she shall be provided with some of the essential articles of furniture that are necessary for her to make a home for herself and her children.
The difficulty regarding the county court can be surmounted. I would make one comment, however, in this connection, which is that my purpose has been to speed up a decision in these cases, and that a county court takes a little longer than a court of summary jurisdiction. Perhaps I might be allowed to suggest, if the county court is to deal with these cases, that provision should be made for a stand-still order when a separation order is granted, so that the husband cannot remove any goods from the house until the matter has been decided by the county Court.
I have been accused in some letters of having seen only one side of this question.

I am a magistrate and I have seen both sides. I quite agree that it is not always the husband who is the offender. But I am dealing with cases where the husband is the cause of the break-up of family life. I am particularly anxious that children should not have a feeling of insecurity, which breeds a lack of confidence generally in society. I know that the Bill cannot help all, but if it has done something to focus attention on this problem, I shall not feel that my efforts have been in vain.
I wish to say how much I appreciate the help, sympathy and agreement that I have found among many Members opposite, as well as among Members on this side of the House. I am grateful to them for the advice they have given. As a new Member I am learning all the time, and I understand that alterations can be made to the Bill during the Committee stage. I am quite aware that there are many adjustments and improvements which can be made. My chief desire has been to simplify the whole process in these difficult cases, but I am afraid that, as an innocent abroad in the legal world upon which I have embarked, I have found that simplification is not very simple. I hope that the House will be able to see its way to give the Bill a Second Reading.

1.25 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: I wish to support the Motion. I became aware during the war, perhaps more forcibly than ever before, of the very real tragedies that are caused when a husband leaves his wife. The wife finds that she has not only suffered the break-up of her home, but that she is left with no home and very often with no possessions at all. It is because of several cases that came to my notice during the war that it has always been my hope to be able to support a Bill of this kind. I hope that the Bill will help women who find themselves in this position in the future, and that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: am perfectly certain that the intention of the Bill is most laudable, and that those who support it have directed their attention to the alleviation of what they believe to be a hardship in family life. As one who has some little knowledge


of the matter, I can only say that the Bill will result in complicating and not elucidating the subject. I would very readily support any Measure to relieve the hardship of a wife and her children. I think it will be found, on closer examination of the legal position, that not only is this a very small part of the picture, but that a woman is already protected by law over a much wider field than is embraced by this Measure.
Clause 1 is of little or no value, because it applies only to desertion in the case of statutory tenancies, and does not take into account the position of contractual tenants and local authority tenants. The Bill is in these and other respects extremely limited. A married woman, by decisions in the courts, is not only protected in regard to the case of desertion, but is protected over the much wider sphere, both of contractual and public authority tenancies. All we should be doing, if this Bill were passed, would be to complicate and throw doubt on the present position. That, in itself, would be more than enough to justify the rejection of the Bill.
I cannot understand why contractual tenancies and public authority tenancies should have been excluded. I cannot believe that there is any dark or sinister motive in the exclusion. If, it is true that there is hardship which justifies legislation, why should these two categories have been left out? The same hardship and need is to be found in these two classes as in the case of statutory tenancies. The only difference for this purpose between a statutory tenancy and a contractual tenancy is that where there is a contractual tenancy, it does not become a statutory tenancy under the Rent Restriction Acts until and unless a notice to quit has been served. Apart from that particular characteristic, the relationship to this particular case and to the circumstances of the relief that is sought is identical whether the case is one of a contractual tenancy or a statutory tenancy.
The same observation applies to the case of a local authority tenancy. A tenancy of that kind is a contractual tenancy in the same way as a lease or any tenancy agreement, and when a person takes a house from a local authority there has to be an agreement. It is a weekly or monthly tenancy and

there is a rent book, which undoubtedly constitute a contractual tenancy. It is, therefore, for all practical purposes, and for the purpose of this particular Measure, a contractual tenancy. To ask this House to put on the Statute Book an Act to cover a case of hardship where a woman happens to be under a statutory tenancy and to exclude a case which is identical, and which may create even greater hardship, because it happens to be a contractual tenancy or a tenancy with a local authority is something which I do not think anyone could reasonably justify.

Miss Irene Ward: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman asserting that he would be prepared to interfere with the rights of local authorities over their own houses, because it would be of great interest to all of us to know if that is what he is really advocating?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think that that is a very important point.

Miss Ward: It is indeed.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think it is, as I will show in a moment or two.
The object of the promoters of this Bill is to deal with hardship. It is not a question of public expediency. There is no reason why, if it is a hardship under a statutory tenancy, it ought not equally to be the same hardship in relation to a public authority. Surely it is not going to be suggested that a public authority should be entrenched behind a statutory protection against a wrong as opposed to some ordinary landlord whose position is one of a private landlord. I cannot accept that for a moment, and I cannot believe that the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) would impose such an exception.

Miss Ward: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the alteration of the rights of local authorities a suitable matter for inclusion in a Private Member's Bill? I should be very interested to know whether that is his view.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I will answer that quite briefly. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady's lack of knowledge of the law—

Miss Ward: I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Exactly, and that is why the hon. Lady's lack of knowledge of the law prevents her from knowing that under the law as it stands a local authority is bound in the way that I have indicated. I will come to that in a moment, but the remark she made is, with respect, pointless. I will go further and say that I cannot conceive, even under rent control, why a public authority ought to have a preference in these matters.
Before I come to the legal position as I see it, I should like to refer to a deficiency in the ground that is covered by this Bill. It merely embraces desertion. One would nave to accept in those circumstances that desertion was at least the biggest consideration in trying to bring the proposed relief to married women whose husbands had behaved badly, and who were meeting with difficulty in connection with the retention or enjoyment of the matrimonial home. We must, however, look at certain other matters which are involved in this question, because they may involve, for instance, cases of very harsh and considerable cruelty. One has only to scan the cases both in the courts of summary jurisdiction and in the High Court to see the sort of grave circumstances in which women are faced with most intolerable domestic positions. In the former courts an order for maintenance may be given under Section 5 of the 1895 Act and under the later Act of 1925.
There is also the case of neglect to maintain the wife and children. There, again, an order may be made by the courts of summary jurisdiction. For neither of those two cases is there any cover at all in this particular Bill, and these cases provide very often much greater hardship than desertion does. There are also cases where the husband has made an assault upon his wife. Those are very serious cases indeed—cases of physical violence which one would have thought the promoters of this Bill would have considered in the light of providing relief as regards the occupation of the house which husband and wife jointly occupy.
Then there are cases of habitual drunkenness. That is another kind of case which falls into that comprehensive category to which I have referred and which I should have thought would have

been dealt with in this particular Measure. Then there are cases of adultery which are just as bad as any that the hon. Lady mentioned when introducing the Bill. There is often even greater hardships to be considered, in the case of divorce.
Not one of the cases in the list which I have given, and which are derived from matrimonial disputes, is covered in this Bill. Therefore, to pass a Bill which deals only with one isolated point and to neglect all the others I have recited would probably result in throwing all the others into greater complexity. That, in my submission, would be a very unwise thing for this House to do.
Let me now come to the present law, because, in fact, the situation of the married woman, as the hon. Lady very frankly adumbrated in her opening speech, is not quite as difficult as is implied by the provisions of this Bill. There has been more than one decision in the Court of Appeal on the wife's rights in the matrimonial home, and I think the law may now be regarded as firmly established, although the matter has not yet been before the House of Lords. I do not want to go into technical details, but the doctrine of agency undoubtedly governs this matter; the wife in such circumstances is her husband's agent. On that point, the decisions in the Court of Appeal are absolutely clear. As her husband's agent, the wife has the right to the possession of the matrimonial home, and she has exacty the same rights in statutory tenancies as if her husband had died.
That is not a proposition of my own but is taken, more or less verha ipsissima, from a judgment in the Court of Appeal and was part of the ground of the decision in the particular case in question. Under the Rent Restriction Acts, a wife like a widow is entitled to all the rights of her husband.

Mr. L. M. Lever: In the case of intestacy.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Intestacy or not, she has that right under the Rent Restriction Acts, and indeed also in the case of contractual tenancies. Of that there is not the slightest doubt. It has been definitely stated in the Court of Appeal. Even if the husband serves notice to quit, he cannot under the present law, dispossess his wife


of the tenancy or occupation of the house, where both are living. It does not matter whatever the husband may do. A wife is her husband's agent in these matters, and he cannot revoke that agency.
When I come to deal with chattels, I am not at all sure that the same rule as to agency does not apply. I do not see why it should not apply. The husband cannot divest his wife of the right to stay in the house, except where she is the guilty party, and even so, I do not see any way of getting the lady divested, unless the husband went to court. It would then be for the court to decide that the situation was such that, owing to the lady's own delinquency, she ought not to be entitled to stay in the house.

Miss Ward: The husband would get an order against her.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It has been stated as a reason for supporting the Bill that the husband has a right to live in the house at present because he is the tenant, but this matter is to be purely discretionary, so far as the Bill is concerned. The Bill says that the court "may." The promoters of the Bill are asking the House to enact a very serious thing, completely in the air, in saying that in all circumstances, whatever the facts are, the husband must be prevented from living in the house. If the man brings another woman into the house and lives there in adultery, the wife might be able to get an injunction against her husband to prevent him from using the house in that way.

Mr. Janner: May I say one word—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me finish my point. We are being asked, without knowing the whole of the facts, to take the step of depriving the husband of a home for himself. If the Bill said that in certain specific circumstances the tenancy should be terminated, there might be something to be said for it, but it proposes merely because a wife gets an order, that her husband is to be divested of his tenancy. Even if there were a point with some force, the defect of the Bill being as limited as it is would make the Bill unworthy of support.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. and learned Friend suggesting that an agent can turn the principal out of the house, and that an agent has more power than the principal himself? Further, suppose that desertion occurs by the two parties living in the same house but not actually cohabiting in the same room. What, then, is the husband's position?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It has been the case since 1925 that even where the man remains in the house the wife can get an order for desertion, as long as there are two households. We are now asked to say that in those circumstances the husband is not to be entitled to live in the house. It is all very well to say, as a sort of sympathetic observation, that because a wife gets an order we must turn her husband out, but the Bill does not safeguard that situation sufficiently. The Bill is very much limited in respect of what, if it were passed, the law will actually provide, and therefore is a bad Bill and ought not to be proceeded with.
I do not say that if the Bill had been wider and had proposed that in particular circumstances that a husband could be divested of his tenancy of his house, it might not have been another matter and worthy of consideration. The Bill does nothing of that sort. It leaves the whole position at large. What the promoters are seeking to do is to have the husband thrown out of the house whatever the circumstances are—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—wait a moment; we have to face this—merely because there happens to be a desertion and because there happens to be an order for maintenance.

Miss Ward: Be fair.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is a proposition which no reasonable person would support, and the mere exclamation "No" does not meet the point. Therefore, in addition to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), not only may a woman now stay in the house with the husband and get an order for desertion, but the fact that she stays in the House does not imply any forgiveness or condonation of the husband's conduct.
So far as the tenancy is concerned, the present position, in my submission, is that the wife is sufficiently protected. It is true that under the law as it is at the moment a husband will be entitled to


stay in the house as well as his wife. I submit that that is not unfair unless, of course, the husband has some other woman in the house and is carrying on systematic adultery there. That certainly would not be proper. But in my submission—I say it in spite of the opinion in the House which appears to be against it—the wife could have a recourse to the courts and she would be entitled, her rights to the house being equal to those of the husband—it has been laid down—to some form of relief by an injunction or otherwise which would not expose her to having to live in the house where she is entitled by law to live, with her husband living there with a woman in a state of adultery. As the law is, it adequately protects the wife both in contractual tenancies and in statutory tenancies. Tenancies of public authority houses are also amply covered.
I want to put another point to the promoters of the Bill. Not only are those matters covered, to which I have referred, but where the husband is the owner of the house he would have the greatest difficulty in getting the wife out because he could not sue her. That is because to do so would be tantamount to bringing an action in tort against his wife, which he cannot do. What could happen would be that under an Act of 1882 the wife or the husband would be entitled to go to the court and ask it to decide which of them should have the right to the occupation of the house. So that, even where the husband is the owner, he cannot get his wife out because he cannot bring the necessary action to do so.
I want now to turn to the question of chattels. Assuming a wife was left in a house—that is to say, assuming we gave a wife under the law as it stands the benefit of the tenancy—it would rather leave her in difficulties if, on the one hand, we gave her that and, on the other, we enabled her to be deprived of the use of all the furniture by its being taken by the husband out of the house. That would be a very serious proposition. Supposing that is right, are the promoters really asking the House to pass a Bill which contains only that provision? That is really what it would amount to, even if the law made it necessary to cover that. I doubt whether the law makes it necessary to do so. If it is true that

a wife is the husband's agent in connection with the tenancy of the house—

Mr. L. M. Lever: While they are living together?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, not while they are living together. If the wife is the agent of the husband in regard to the tenancy of the house, I submit that she must equally be said to be the agent of the husband in regard to the enjoyment and benefit of the furniture which goes with the house. I should be prepared to argue that, and I believe that it would be held to be good in law. I cannot see the difference between the right to the tenancy which the wife has and the right to the furniture if the wife is accepted as her husband's agent. I am not saying that that would be held, but in my submission it seems as a proposition to be just as strong in regard to chattels as it is in regard to the tenancy. In any case, whether that is so or not, to ask this House to pass a Bill which will merely deal with an item like chattels is asking the House to do more than it ought as a serious legislature to do.
Though I would certainly be anxious to support any Measure designed to bring substantial relief not already available to a married woman or her children, the present law is so much wider than any provision which the Bill seeks to make that, even if there is a small margin of good in the Bill, its passage would complicate the present law and put married women in difficulties which they do not have to face now. For those reasons, the House ought to reject the Bill.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: The remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) would encourage rather than deter anyone who wished to support the Bill. The greatest justification for the Measure is the speech which he has just made. This is a matter which affects the sanctity of family life in its day to day relations and does not call for the pontifical observations of a higher court with which my hon. and learned Friend is associated. The Measure is intended to deal in a simple manner with the problems which affect ordinary men and women in their marital difficulties. If on every occa-


sion when there is desertion of a wife by a husband the lawyers have to indulge in remarks as lengthy and complicated as those in which my hon. and learned Friend indulged, the whole object of the Measure, which is to give succour and support to the deserted married women, will be completely defeated.
This is a Measure which completes an aspect of the very great service which, by common consent, the lay magistrates of the country have been rendering. I am one of those who believe that the intelligence and common sense of lay magistrates are an additional advantage to those who submit their problems to the magistrates. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1875, gives magistrates power to grant an order to a deserted wife, but as soon as the magistrates have proclaimed the order their power ceases. In effect, they can only partially remedy the problem they are called upon to solve. That is the reason for this Measure. Magistrates can say to a deserted wife, "You can have your order, but we do not know where you will live after tonight, whether you will have to wander along the streets, perhaps with three, four or five children, or whether you should go to the already over-burdened housing department to inquire whether it can do anything." With such a situation the community is faced with a very difficult position. I feel that, rather than overburdening the difficult situation of housing committees, we ought to ease their position, and this Measure will assist in that regard. It also puts the wife, in whose favour an order is made, in a strong bargaining position from the point of view of reconciliation. There is nothing in this Measure which is of complete permanency. Every Clause of it indicates that the value of this Measure lasts only so long as an order exists.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to various other grounds on which husbands and wives can be separated, but I would point out to him that desertion may cover many of the things to which he has referred. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what is meant by constructive cruelty. It can include conditions which make it obligatory upon the wife to leave the home, and while it is perfectly true that Clause I says:
… deserted her and, at the time when the order is made, she is resident in premises … 

the courts may very well construe, in constructive desertion which compels a married woman to leave the marital home, that she still resides in the home, even though physically she may not do so. Therefore, I feel that this Bill is a contribution of benefit. It will act as a preventive against separation, and, in my view maintain the integrity of the family. I feel that if a separation on the ground of desertion does take place, then inevitably the wife will be put in a strong position; and the children will gain immediate benefit in having a home over their heads without any of the legal complications to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
In regard to the chattels, quite obviously when we give the benefit of the home we are also giving the wife and children—because it is confined to the case where there are children or a child—the benefit of the furniture. I see a difficulty which ought to be dealt with in Committee. Clause 2 (3) states:
Nothing in this section shall authorise the making of any order with respect to any property in which a third person has any right or interest, and any order made under this section, insofar as it purports to relate to any such property, shall be of no effect.
We know that in these days many married people buy their furniture on the hire purchase system. Suppose all the furniture is on the hire purchase system, then all the furniture would be property in which a third person has a right or interest. The giving of an order for the transfer of the tenancy to the housewife might be completely nugatory. If all the furniture is on the hire purchase system nothing could be done by a court of summary jurisdiction in relation to that. May I say, to their credit, that in many cases where furniture is bought on the hire purchase system the wife contributes a substantial portion of the cost. Where a wife has contributed to the cost of any property in which a third party has any right or interest I would even provide the court of summary jurisdiction with the opportunity of giving a remedy, and of dealing with that property to which the wife has contributed.
I feel that this is a Measure of social benefit which can do no harm. There may be many points to which we would wish to refer in Committee, but that does not in any way minimise the necessity for the Bill. After nearly a quarter of


a century of experience as a solicitor in the courts I can speak of many cases where an order given by a court of summary jurisdiction has been of no value whatsoever, because the wife was in a worse position after the order, from the point of view of domestic circumstances, than she was before. It is a question of whether she is better off free without a home, or whether she is better off in the home with an irritating husband, or a husband whose conduct may cause her to desert or create family schism. I hope the House will recognise that. After all, we must do honour to our women. We must do honour to the women who are bringing up our children. We must not weaken their hands. By strengthening their hands we shall strengthen the bonds of matrimony which particularly in these days would be of great benefit to the community, and of far-reaching effect, from the point of view of conditions both today and in the future.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. John Bay: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House while recognising the undoubted necessity of providing adequate protection for deserted wives and their children, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which confines relief only to wives who are deserted, does not provide relief for wives who divorce their husbands, limits relief only to premises to which the Rent Restriction Acts apply, interferes with existing private contracts of tenancy to the detriment of lessors, and which, by failing to provide a procedure for the re-vesting of tenancies and chattels if the parties resume cohabitation, will impede reconciliation in unhappy marriages.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has left the Chamber, because although there were a number of points upon which I was in complete agreement with him, there were a great many others in which I was certainly not in agreement. The main point upon which I agree with him is that I do not like this Bill. I agree with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) who moved the Second Reading, that there is a great social opportunity here. Those of us who have had anything whatever to do with the matrimonial jurisdiction of magistrates know perfectly well that this problem does arise, that under the provisions of

the 1925 Act unless the wife is actually living separate from the husband in some other place, any order which the magistrates make, as the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) has just said, is nugatory. If my hon. Friends had wanted to deal with this situation it would have been better to direct their attention to that particular provision of the 1925 Act rather than produce a Bill which I am bound to say touches, in my opinion, only the very fringe of this problem; and which may, if left unamended, do very substantial harm.
The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester in the course of what I think was the more accurate part of his speech — —

Mr. L. M. Lever: Which part was that?

Mr. Hay: —referred to the present legal position. This Bill deals only with the case of a wife who is deserted. Because of the scope of the Bill, I can foresee considerable difficulties on the part of those of us who wish to improve it when we come to Committee stage. At present the law shortly is that if a wife is deserted by her husband in the sense that he physically parts from her, the landlord cannot recover possession of the house if it is rent controlled unless there is some other ground apart from the absence of the husband. That is the case of Middleton versus Baldock to which reference has been made.
But this Bill does not help us at all to deal with the other case touched upon where the wife is constructively deserted, where the behaviour of the husband—the cruelty of the husband—causes the wife to leave the matrimonial home. That sort of person is not assisted by the Bill, because Clause 1 (1) in terms requires the wife to be resident on the premises when the order is made. The fact that she will have left the matrimonial home, because of the conduct of the husband which gave rise to the actual desertion, precludes her from coming within the umbrella of protection which that Clause provides.

Mr. L. M. Lever: The court has power to determine that she may be deemed to be resident, and the term "resident" may mean physical presence such as would have existed but for the constructive desertion.

Mr. Hay: The word used in the Bill is actually "resident," and I think the hon. Gentleman is now turning into a latter-day Humpty-Dumpty in that he is using words to mean just what he wants them to mean—no more and no less.
Let me put the second objection which I have to this Bill, which was touched upon by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester. I am worried about the scope of this Bill. I agree that there is a great problem here, and I want to help these women as much as do the promoters of the Bill, but I cannot see the sense, logic or decency of merely confining the relief which is proposed to be given by this Bill to wives who are deserted. There is the likelihood that cases of persistent cruelty, cases of adultery, cases where the husband has committed an aggravated assault upon the wife, cases of habitual drunkenness or where the husband has compelled the wife's prostitution—all these cases for separation orders are far more likely to be met with by the magistrates than cases of desertion. I think that is generally understood.
Frequently, magistrates have these applications before them, and, if desertion is alleged, they will not do anything which will prevent the parties coming together again. The very nature of a separation order is protection of the wife, and in this sort of case the wife is not covered, because if a separation order is given, she cannot be resident in the premises. Therefore, I feel that this Bill is too limited in its scope.
I want to go a little further and ask my hon. Friends who support this Bill or anyone who will reply why it is only in the cases where separation or maintenance orders are made that this sort of relief is to be given. Let me remind the House that if a wife chooses to divorce her husband on the ground of desertion, automatically, as soon as she receives her decree absolute, she loses the status of that man's wife and thereby loses the protection of the matrimonial home if it is a rent-restricted property.
As a solicitor, I appeared for a wife whose case has become the leading case on this point. What happened in that case was this. This unfortunate lady was living in rent-controlled premises with the child of the marriage, when her hus-

band went off and left her. He had contracted to pay the rent to the landlord, and, for all that the landlord knew, he was resident in the flat. When the wife took proceedings to divorce her husband on the grounds of his desertion and got her decree, instantly the landlord came along, and the Court of Appeal held that he was quite entitled to get possession of the premises, because, in fact, the wife's status had been determined. Why are these wives not protected by this Bill? I think there is just as much right in the case of a woman who takes the step of seeking a divorce against her husband on the grounds of his desertion as there is in the case of a woman who makes an application for a separation or maintenance order against her husband also on the ground of desertion.
I turn now to another point which was touched upon by the hon. Lady who moved the Second Reading. She referred to council houses and local authority property, and, as I understood her, she said that her intention was that this Bill was to be one short step along a very long road, and that in time it might be possible for other types of property at present outside to be brought within the protection which this Bill gives. There are other sorts of property concerning which I think there is a strong case to be made out today, quite apart from the question of future policy, where this sort of protection ought also to be given.
What about furnished flats? So frequently we find that people who have matrimonial differences are living in furnished houses. Why should it be that a woman living in a rent-controlled house would be entitled to the protection afforded by this Bill, whereas a woman in a local authority house in the next street does not get that protection? I think that is unjust and unfair, and I do not think that the House of Commons ought to pass a Bill which does not contain provisions for dealing with both types of case.
In the more inaccurate part of his speech, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester talked a lot about statutory tenancies, and inquired why it was that the Bill did not deal with contractual tenancies. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to have read the Bill, because, if he had looked at Clause 1 (3), he would have seen that the expression


"statutory tenant" is there defined. I shall read only the last three lines:
and includes any such person who enjoys his interest in the premises under a contractual term which has not expired.
To the ordinary practising lawyer, the words "statutory tenancy" mean a definite thing—a status and right of occupation, but a statutory tenancy is nowhere defined in the Bill, nor in the 1920 Act, except by way of a sidenote to Section 15. This Bill now seeks to expand the definition of statutory tenant to something very much greater, and, under this definition, a statutory tenancy includes any contractual term—not only a weekly, monthly or even quarterly tenancy, but all leases for a period of years.
What will be the effect of the Bill if it goes through as it stands? It means that, when a court is making a maintenance order for a wife, it can transfer the liability under the lease, without any reference whatever to the landlord. The situation is this. The wife goes to court and asks for a maintenance order, and the court, as part of its general order, gives her the statutory protection which this Bill seeks to provide. The landlord is not called in at any stage of the proceedings. Without any word to him, he finds that he has had someone else substituted for his tenant. He has contracted with a man, who was to pay the rent and perform certain covenants, and here are the magistrates, without reference to the landlord at all, having the power to substitute the wife for the man with whom he had contracted.

Mrs. Corbet: As the law stands, there is provision for consultation with the landlord.

Mr. Hay: I think it is a pity that the hon. Lady did not address that point to her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester.
I think it is unfair to the landlord that, by an Act of Parliament, we should substitute, or give the power to substitute, someone else for the person with whom the landlord had contracted. These are private contracts, and it is a pretty big principle to introduce in a Private Member's Bill to say that, if A and B agree to some contract, the court has power to substitute C for A, because that is what will happen.
What is to happen to the unfortunate lessor of property of this kind? It may well be that the wife, in the nature of things, may find it extremely difficult to pay the rent. The very fact that the wife is the wife means that she probably will not have very much money with which to pay the rent, and she may find it very difficult to make ends meet. I am very concerned about this matter, because it is rather unfair that we should substitute the wife for the husband as the tenant of premises to the detriment of the lessor.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But that happens when the husband dies.

Mr. Hay: Not always, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me if I correct him on that. It does not always happen. In such a case the wife usually succeeds to the husband's property and estate. But here is a case where a husband has gone off and is only liable to pay maintenance—and not all such husbands pay as they should—and the wife's financial position is inevitably worse because her husband has left her. The two situations are not on all fours. I think it possible to provide some kind of system whereby the landlord is entitled to be heard before the magistrates when they decide on the subject. I think that the present wording is a serious objection to the Bill as it stands, and a fundamental one.
I want now to say a few words about Clause 2 of the Bill which deals with the question of furniture and chattels, and this is in many ways a very bad provision. In moving the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) referred rather ingenuously to this provision by saying that the matter could be arranged satisfactorily. I do not think it can, and I am very worried about this provision. Under it a court is being given power by an Act of Parliament to vest the ownership of furniture and chattels, which may have been bought jointly, or may have been bought by the husband alone and are therefore his property, in a wife. Very often these cases of matrimonial upset, where one party leaves the other, are six of one and half a dozen of the other. I have heard magistrates say that one might just as well go behind a court bench and toss a coin to see who is telling the truth.

Miss Ward: Not always.

Mr. Hay: Not always, but very often as I said, and I am sure that anybody who has had any experience of matrimonial cases before justices knows how very difficult it sometimes is to get the truth.
Let us suppose for a moment that there is a matrimonial difference between two parties. Under this Bill the court is being given power to vest the ownership of the furniture and chattels in the wife, although it may have been as much her fault as the husband's that the home was broken up. It may just happen that he has got "fed up" first and has gone off, and therefore the wife has brought the proceedings. What about the husband? Is he going to be assisted in any way towards that reconciliation which I think is so important in public policy? Is he going to be assisted along that particular road by the fact that the tenancy of his home has been vested compulsorily against his will in the wife, and also the furniture and chattels which he owns? I do not think so: I think we are going to have husbands becoming extremely embittered and very resentful if that sort of provision is allowed to stand.
I will go further and say that the Bill as it stands makes absolutely no provision at all for the re-vesting of chattels. If hon. Members will look at the actual wording of Clause 2 they will see that it makes it clear that once there is a vesting the ownership passes to the wife. There is no provision at all that if the parties come together again—which is, after all, what we want to see happen if possible, and broken marriages can be mended—that the wife will not still retain the ownership of the furniture and chattels and the right to the tenancy. I should want to see substantial changes made to Clause 2 before I was prepared to agree to it. There, in short, is my view about the Bill.
May I make clear to hon. Members before I resume my seat that my objection is not to the principle underlying the Bill. I think that protection ought to be given to wives who are either deserted or cruelly treated by their husbands, but I think that this Bill is wrong in the way that it tries to give such protection. I am not sure that it can altogether be remedied in Committee, and therefore, I ask the House to accept my Amendment.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Bell: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I ask the House to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading, and like him I do so without in any way wishing to imply that I have not the greatest sympathy with the condition in which many wives find themselves when deserted by their husbands, and even when an order for their maintenance has been made against the husbands. But however great the sympathy which one may feel with wives in that position, this House must exercise great discretion and responsibility before it places on the Statute Book a Measure which, in remedying one abuse, might bring into existence a greater one, and which might even be ineffective to do that to which it is directed.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and also to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). We have had some rather strange law in the debate this afternoon. At one time the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester appeared to be contending that the courts might make injunctions against living in adultery, and I think the hon. Member for Ardwick was suggesting that the term "residence" might be construed as meaning where somebody would be living if he were not, in fact, living somewhere else.
I do not intend to follow those hon. Members up those devious by-ways of the law, nor, indeed, am I going to invite the House to give much consideration to the imperfections in the Bill, however serious they may be, if they are matters which can be cured during the Committee stage. I want to oppose this Bill because I think it is incurably bad. One may want to help wives who are deserted, but can one do so by passing a Bill which confers upon the courts of summary jurisdiction the power to make orders—I apologise for using a technical expression—in rem?
I am already rather unhappy about the matrimonial jurisdiction in the lower courts of this country, and although I yield in no way to the hon. Member for Ardwick in his admiration for the


work done by lay magistrates, nevertheless I have often felt very unhappy that we have to remit matrimonial causes to their adjudication. Very often the decision in those courts is no less grave, or very little less grave, than that which is made by judges of the High Court in divorce proceedings. Indeed, very often it becomes almost the basis of divorce proceedings.
In my professional capacity I have had considerable experience of matrimonial causes, as no doubt many other hon. Members have, and I am always struck by the difference between the conduct of a defended divorce in the High Court of Justice, which may last two three or four days before a High Court judge, and the course of a defended application by a wife for an order before a magistrate, of which frequently half a dozen are heard in a day. It often happens that only one of the parties is represented and in those cases it is nearly always the husband who is not represented. I know that, however carefully magistrates' courts hear these matters, they cannot be fully discussed and the final truth of the matter arrived at in this way.
One has also to remember—and I think it was referred to in a High Court judgment recently—that a judgment in favour of one party or the other in this kind of proceedings is not a judgment of the court nor an opinion of the court that that party is to blame for the breakup of the marriage. It means that that party has been found by the competent court to be the one which has committed the specific matrimonial offence. If one could look at the whole story of the marriage, one would sometimes find that the other party was the one who, in the small matters of every-day life, had destroyed that sentiment which binds a marriage together. But the law does not and cannot look at such matters of detail. It has to look at a specific act, like desertion or a blow struck or something of that kind, and it says, in effect, that the first person who is proved to have taken the tangible step of a prescribed action is the person against whom an order or a decree of divorce has to be made.
It must not be assumed that, because an order or a decree has been made, the court has found that that party is the one which has broken up the marriage. In

these courts of summary jurisdiction these matters are carefully and conscientiously inquired into by the magistrates; and the difficulties under which they labour in exercising this jurisdiction are really substantial. They rarely have the advantage of hearing the case presented by counsel. Quite often they do not have the advantage of hearing any legal representations at all. One knows that when husband and wife get into court in this way, without representation, there is a tendency for the matter to develop into recrimination and counter-recrimination rather than into allegation, defence and explanation.
I should be extremely unhappy, and I ask the House to feel the same way, if one were to add to the significance and consequence of the orders made in this way. When one comes to the High Court of Justice with one of these orders made in the inferior court in an undefended case of divorce, that order can serve as corroboration of the allegation.

Mr. Kaberry: As prima facie evidence, not necessarily corroboration.

Mr. Bell: I am obliged. No decree of divorce can be given without the evidence of the petitioner. It is within the experience of all of us in this House who have had to deal professionally with these matters that it is not a great disadvantage in the High Court to go in as a petitioner with an order of this kind made against one. In a defended suit the fact that an order has been made is really not regarded by the court. This has been justified by the High Court by saying that it is well known that these matters cannot be inquired into with the same particularity before courts of summary jurisdiction as they are in the High Court of Justice. I mention these matters because this Bill proposes to give to the courts of summary jurisdiction the power over the property of the parties which I do not think is actually possessed by the High Court of Justice.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, proceedings can be taken with regard to questions of ownership of matrimonial property.

Mr. Bell: That is another matter, but this Bill is to transfer property owned by


one party to another. This Bill admits that tenancy belongs to the husband and proposes to give it to the wife irrespective of existing rights. The Married Women's Property Act procedure is to decide what the relative rights are. I think that is quite a different thing.
I have no experience of the Probate Division purporting to transfer property. I do not say dogmatically that they cannot, because I have not checked it. I do not know of a case in which it has been done —a tenancy transferred from the husband to the wife as part of an order of maintenance made by the court. It would be surely a striking thing if, by a Private Member's Bill, this wide and unfamiliar power were conferred on courts of summary jurisdiction.
I should be very sorry to see any extension of the real property jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. I do not think they are a suitable court to deal with these matters. The Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, is the only Act of that kind with which they deal at the moment. I hold the view that that is not very desirable. I know there are arguments in favour, but I think the balance of argument is in favour of a transfer to the county court and that, on the whole, these powers should not be exercised by the magistrates because they are not a suitable tribunal. They have not the time nor the legal training to decide matters of law or matters that may require extended argument for a considerable period of time.
This matter is not curable in Committee and it goes to the root of the Bill, because the Bill proposes that the court which makes the order, and presumably knows the background, should make an order transferring the tenancy or apportioning the chattels. To my mind, that is a fatal argument against the Bill. I say that without the slightest disrespect to magistrates who work so hard in administering the law, but I really think that these are not matters that ought to be consigned to courts of that nature.
I know I am making a criticism without offering an alternative to achieve the aim we all want to achieve in relieving hardship on women in this position. The county court is overburdened already and will not have heard the original matri-

monial dispute. I do not offer any constructive alternative; I merely state my reason for feeling that the court of summary jurisdiction is not the suitable court for this purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Which means the High Court?

Mr. Bell: That may be so. I cannot offer the House an alternative. I have not arrived at one. It is a very difficult matter, because whoever exercises discretion of this kind wants to know an awful lot about the merits of the matrimonial dispute.
Then there is the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has referred, which answers the point made by the hon. Member for Ardwick about the effect on reconciliation of an order of this kind if it were made. The magistrates, upon hearing these matrimonial causes, have power to make either a maintenance order or a separation order; but it certainly is not their custom, and in fact I think it is extremely rare, to make a separation order upon the ground of desertion. I have never known a separation order made on the ground of desertion. It may be that such an order has been made in recent years, but I have no knowledge of one and I think that they are confined exclusively to cases of cruelty and are made for the wife's protection.
I know that a court has full jurisdiction to make orders in the case of desertion but they are not usually made, partly because the wife's remedy in the divorce court would be impaired if a separation order were made, but also because the remedy is felt to be peculiarly appropriate to cases of cruelty. Cases of desertion are precisely those in which reconciliation is most likely. Where there has been cruelty or adultery, reconciliation is much more difficult; but the ordinary cases of the spouses separating are the ones in which reconciliation is more possible.
Here we are dealing with the separation of three years, as in the divorce court, but with a temporary separation. The applications to the magistrates are often made quickly, within a week or two of the husband leaving, because they are usually poor people and the wife has to get money in order to carry on. The applications are made sometimes very quickly. Those are, above all, the cases


in which reconciliation is possible. But any prospect of reconciliation will be gravely damaged if the courts begin to exercise this jurisdiction of transferring the tenancy to the wife.
It is true that at present the husband can go back. It is very desirable that he should go back. The law requires that if the wife wants to petition for divorce she should, for three years, be ready and willing at all times to receive the husband back. That is the law, and surely it is more than the law; it is good sense. The rate at which marriages are breaking up in this country is something which must disquiet the House and public opinion. Any Measure which would make it more difficult for the parties to resume cohabitation could not be one which would really serve the objects in the minds of those hon. Members who have put forward this Bill. Once a tenancy was transferred to the wife, she would be in a position in law to prevent the husband from going back. To strengthen that position is not really the way to encourage reconciliation.
I often think that people over-estimate the extent to which the law can assist reconciliation. My view is that very often the interference of the law, however well intended, destroys the prospect of reconciliation. Once the parties are at arm's length, it is difficult to get them together again, and the further apart we set them he more unlikely it is that they will come together again. On that ground alone, I should be sorry if a Measure which sets out to do just what is set out in the Bill were to be passed by this House and put upon the Statute Book out of any vague feeling of sympathy with the undoubted hardship of wives who are deserted and find they have nowhere to go when they have got their order.
Now I refer to the duration of such orders if they were made. Once made they are, as far as one can see, irrevocable. I am not merely referring to reconciliation. Suppose an order were discharged upon the grounds of the husband's adultery, an order made under this Bill would continue in force. That would be a remarkable state of affairs. If the maintenance order against a wife were discharged on the ground of misconduct, these orders vesting the chattels and tenancy in her would continue in force. That is a point which might be

remedied in Committee, but at the moment it is a matter of substance.
Lastly, on Clause 2, which concerns chattels, I would repeat to hon. Members the same argument that I put forward on the question of tenancy. I do not think that a court of petty sessions is really suitable to decide a very tricky matter like the transfer of chattels from one spouse to another. All sorts of questions will arise upon such a matter—questions of law, questions of hardship, questions of relative value. We are familiar with some of them in proceedings under the Married Women's Property Act in the High Court, and the sort of evidence one must call to make out one's case on value and so forth. I really cannot see, as a matter of practical politics, how we could administer this Bill, if it were to become an Act of Parliament, either on the tenancy side or on the chattel side. I just do not think it could be done anyway, however laudable the aims may be, and I must ask the House, without in any way recording its lack of sympathy with the motives and intentions of the Bill, to refuse to give it a Second Reading.

2.47 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I fail to understand why the Amendment has been moved or why there is any objection to this Bill, except perhaps on the one ground that possibly in Committee those points which require to be amended would not be so amended. That is an entirely wrong attitude to be taken by anyone who professes to be in sympathy with a Measure and who is anxious to remedy an evil which undoubtedly exists and which should be removed as speedily as possible.
This is a Private Members' Bill. It is not a Government Measure and it is not a major Measure in the sense of being comprehensive. Indeed, if a Measure had been introduced which was comprehensive, it would take a long time to discuss in Committee and it would not be appropriate for a Private Member to attempt to pass it through this House. The whole object of Private Members' Bills is to set the ball rolling in a certain direction, to get some wrong put right; some Measure introduced on to the Statute Book which will help to remove difficulties that exist; possibly to be used as a guinea pig in relation to further


legislation. But certainly Private Members' Bills should not be heavy comprehensive Measures.
What does this Bill profess to do? I am not happy about the wording of it. With the greatest respect to those who are promoting it, I would say that the wording might have been very much more happily framed; but their intention is good and I do not think that, because the wording is a little bit difficult and perhaps does not fully carry out what they want to do, we should turn down the Bill. The wording can be put right in the Committee stage. I hope that hon. Members who have so far opposed the Bill, will try to help in the Committee stage to put the wording right.
Let me take the strongest argument that was used against the Measure—that a court of summary jurisdiction ought not to be vested with the power that this Bill attempts to place in its hands. A court of summary jurisdiction already has the power to grant an order; and that, after all, is the material issue, if it is a question of happiness, and of deciding what is in the best interests of two married persons who fall out with each other. It is much more important than deciding any question relating to the house in which they live or to a chattel that one of them is to use. No one has suggested that the first power should be taken away from the magistrates.
It is true that it has been said that the High Court takes longer in arriving at a decision. I see that hon. Members who spend weeks in the High Court arguing about some case or a number of cases in which technical points decide the issue, positively fear that the dignity of the High Court and the importance of the High Court may be interfered with. But that has already been done. The magistrates have been given that power; and not only have they been given that power, but it has been given in a definite sense, because that type of case is submitted to a particular type of tribunal. Usually—and I think that this is probably within the experience of all those who practise in the courts—the magistrates who deal with these matters are people who are regarded as specifically suited to deal with this particular type of investigation and inquiry.
Moreover, they are helped by extra legal evidence and by court officers. I

know that some legal big-wigs think that that ought not to be done; that it is not right, it is not proper, that anything should be inquired into except on absolutely, strictly legal lines and by the rules of evidence. However, the fact remains that this has been accepted by those who are better qualified—if I may say so with respect—than others to decide these matters, and that method of inquiry into and investigating these domestic difficulties is the one which is at present in use. There are inquiries by the court officers, and every attempt is made to reconcile the parties. The magistrates who decide these cases are not devoid of human feelings or of anxieties about bringing the parties together.
If their discretion can be relied upon to grant an order, then I see no reason why those matters that should follow from the order, the decisions that have to be made with regard to making the order effective, should not also be in their control. They know the facts of the case they know about the family of the parties they know what has happened in the course of the marital relationship between the parties; they delve into every point; and they do it, I think, as closely as possible within an atmosphere of privacy, and on the basis, as far as possible, of friendliness towards the parties concerned.
They ultimately come to the decision that an order should be made—I take this specific point—for desertion. I agree that the scope of the Bill might be extended. It could be extended to cases of cruelty. It might be extended to all sorts of cases. But this Measure attempts to deal with one of the positions. In passing, I may say that many of the arounds—cruelty, and so on—could be utilised in order to obtain an order for desertion without applying for an order on the grounds of cruelty. That is the first point. I agree that it might be extended later on to divorce proceedings. It might be extended later on to all sorts of proceedings. But for the time being let us try to break the ice and let us get on with the job.
Let me give an illustration of what I mean. I remember years ago that a Measure was introduced in this House for compelling mining companies to be insured so that a person claiming compensation would not suffer if the company went into liquidation. It was passed. It


was a small Measure, but it was an important Measure. It is perfectly true that one might have argued at that time—and rightly argued—that it was illogical to do that merely for mines, and that it ought to have been done for all employers. Nevertheless, that Measure led the way towards other Measures and was an important addition to the Statute Book. It is in that light that I regard this particular Bill, and I hope that hon. Members who have quite rightly criticised its limitations will withdraw their Amendment and their objections and give the hon. Lady an opportunity of doing something that is really worth while for those who suffer in the manner referred to here.
Let me make another point concerning the question of the discretion with regard to occupation of homes. It is within the discretion of the court today under the Rent Restriction Acts to decide whether a person should have the use of a house or not, irrespective in many cases of what the superior landlord would want. Hon. Gentlemen here who have practised in the courts will know that on the death of a tenant a widow is entitled, irrespective of what the landlord wants, to take possession of the house as a statutory tenant—that the executrix or executor under a contractual tenancy is entitled to remain in the house, in certain circumstances, irrespective of what the landlord wants. So it is not introducing something new to give the courts of summary jurisdiction the power to do what is asked for in this Bill.
I have mentioned on numerous occasions in this House—and I hope I shall be forgiven for repeating it—that I consider that a court of summary jurisdiction has as great powers as a county court; that it has tremendous powers—I am not going to say of life and death, but powers of importance; extensive powers to fine; tremendous powers of moulding the futures of people and over the homes of people in its hands. I do not think that this extension of these powers would be such a terrible thing as it has been made out to be, particularly by the hon. Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell), who seconded the Amendment.

Mr. Bell: Is the hon. Gentleman's argument that because courts of summary jurisdiction already have extensive powers, then logically there ought to be

no limit to the extent to which those powers should be further extended?

Mr. Janner: That is the whole trouble. I understand the hon. Gentleman is a barrister, which explains the position, for he deals in a much higher sphere, in that sublime atmosphere which regards the lower strata as being beyond recognition. Desertion carries a comparatively small weekly payment. A person who can afford to take proceedings in the higher courts does not usually come to the police court to have her case decided.
We are not talking about large vested estates being handed over. We are not talking about huge fortunes being trans ferred in the way of chattels. We are talking about what magistrates will consider reasonable in the discretion they have in order to allow a deserted wife to have a roof over her head and a little furniture with which to carry on a home. No magistrate worthy of his salt would be incapable of deciding whether a few chairs and a table ought to be granted to a deserted woman. It is to be a discretionary right. Suppose a deserted wife were suddenly to ask for some piece of Chippendale furniture to be handed over merely because she liked that ornamentation in the home, I cannot imagine the court saying that that was of such vital importance to her that it must be handed over.
We are here dealing with ordinary human beings who have not a large amount of wealth, with men and women of the ordinary classes who come before the courts. We are trying to prevent a decision of the court made in favour of a wife who has been deserted from becoming useless. If a wife is to be thrown out of the house and not to have a roof over her head or any furniture, that is either compelling her to return against her will and against the decision of the court—not giving her the right to decide for herself, but making it impossible for her to refuse—or possibly, as often happens, driving her into an immoral life from which she cannot escape.

Mr. Hay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that part of my speech in which I said that, at the moment, the law covered this position of desertion both from the constructive point of view, and from the point of view of ordinary physical desertion? Does he also agree


that what is really needed is an amendment of the 1925 Act?

Mr. Janner: It does not entirely cover the position. It does not cover it to the extent that this Bill would have it covered. I would alter some Clauses of this Bill. I am not altogether satisfied that its provisions should apply only to a case in which the wife is still living in the house; the scope of the Bill might be extended there. I hope that this Bill will be given a Second Reading so that we may consider it in Committee and amend it where necessary, for then I am certain that we shall have done something really worth while.

3.4 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: It is very easy to utter noble words about the plight of deserted wives, and it is very easy to get up here and say, as we all do, that we ought to get some evil remedied, and that we ought to try to do something about it. I do not for a moment suppose that there is one hon. Member on either side of the House who would not desire to see something done in the interests of deserted wives. When we are considering a Bill, whether it be a Bill promoted by the Government or whether it falls into that humbler category, as apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), would describe it, of the Private Members' Bill, we have still, I suppose, a duty to see that the Bill is a practical Measure.
Of course, one realises that if the only objection to a Bill is some small point in a particular Clause that may be remedied by an Amendment being put down, so that the Bill can be made into a really effective Measure, it would be our duty to support the Bill. I suggest, with all respect to the promoters of this Bill, that however much we all are in sympathy with the object of the Bill, the Bill, as drawn now, cannot stand, and that this Bill, as one would visualise it in any way with regard to the possibility of amendment, cannot become a satisfactory Bill. I suggest that there are so many difficulties in the way of this Bill, that they make it fatal for the Bill as it now stands.
The first point of criticism which I want to make is one which has already been made, but which, I think, must be

emphasised. I do not know whether there is any particular virtue in a deserted wife as against a wife who has had an aggravated assault committed upon her or who has suffered from persistent cruelty or from a matrimonial offence of some kind. I see that the authors of the Bill have chosen to take desertion and base it on an order under Section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. My recollection is that Section 4 of that Act sets out not only desertion but a number of other matrimonial offences, and why on earth the promoters of this Bill should have chosen the evil of desertion as being the one thing on which the whole of the consequences set out in the Bill should follow, I do not know.

Mr. Janner: Would my hon. Friend answer this question: In any of the points which he has made and which entitles a person to apply for an order on any of the other grounds, is there one of them which would not entitle a person to have an order for desertion?

Mr. Weitzman: My hon. Friend has entirely missed the point I am making. Of course it is open to a police court magistrate in a court of summary jurisdiction to make a desertion order on these grounds; but that surely is not the point. Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that, if a wife has had an aggravated assault committed upon her or has suffered from persistent cruelty or neglect to maintain and the magistrate has made an order but not a desertion order, the relief set out in the Bill should not apply. Surely if it is right that the relief given here should follow an order for desertion, there is no reason why other offences set out in Section 4 of the Act of 1895 should not attract the same relief.
The first criticism, therefore, is that the Bill is far too limited in its scope. I know that it may be said, "You can remedy that in Committee," and if it was a point that remained alone, possibly we could; but it seems to me that it is wrong in principle to give an advantage because the offence of desertion has been committed and not any other offence and to say "You may claim the benefit of Clause 1 of the Bill because a desertion order has been made," taking no account of other matrimonial offences.
My second criticism is on a matter which has also been mentioned and which


again, I think, ought to be emphasised. The law as it stands at the moment substantially provides for the enactment that is now proposed in Clause I of the Bill upon an order on the ground of desertion having been made. It has already been pointed out that the law of the land is that when a wife is deserted she has a right to remain in the matrimonial home and if a landlord brought proceedings for possession against her, she would have a perfectly good defence. I suggest that this Bill does harm to the existing law, and if in fact this enactment is placed upon the Statute Book, I see no reason why some astute lawyer should not argue that what is the law today has gone.
If we look at the words in Clause 1 (1) —and I invite some of those who have spoken in such general terms about it to look at the words carefully—we see that:
Where a woman obtains an order under section five of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, on the ground that her husband has deserted her and, at the time when the order is made, she is resident in premises of which her husband is the statutory tenant, the court which makes the order, or any court of summary jurisdiction sitting for the same petty sessional division, may, if on her application the court thinks it just to do so having regard to all the circumstances of the case, order that she shall be substituted for her husband as the statutory tenant of those premises:
What is the position of a woman who has applied for an order if the order is not made? What is the position of a woman who has been deserted by her husband if no application of any kind is made?
I suggest it might be argued that, as there is a provision in an Act of Parliament specifically for cases where an order of this kind is made, where an order has not been made the law will imply that a woman has no such protection. There is a positive danger there. At the moment, the common law protects the woman who is deserted by her husband, without the necessity of any Act of Parliament. If we put in an Act of Parliament provisions dealing with the rights of a deserted wife, we are laying ourselves open to the argument that the rights are limited to these provisions. This is a real danger and it may do positive harm.
There is a further point of criticism with regard to the Bill. I should like to support in the strongest possible manner the

criticism that has been made of the suggestion that a court of summary jurisdiction, which is a police court, should deal with this matter. I have heard the eulogy of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), in regard to the work of the police court magistrates. I agree that they do a great deal of very important and valuable work. But, what an extraordinary thing it is to say that because they do very important work we should therefore give them still more important work, and then to counter that by the argument that, after all, we are not dealing with very great sums of money by way of chattels, but only with a few sticks of furniture, such as chairs and tables. Those chairs and tables are just as valuable to the woman as the vested estates or great sums of money are to the wealthy.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend explain why we have county courts, police courts, quarter sessions and other courts to deal with specific cases?

Mr. Weitzman: I should be prepared to deal with that but for the fact that I am afraid I should be ruled out of order.
I wish to emphasise that in my view the police court is the worst possible tribunal to deal with this matter. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that police courts deal with matrimonial causes. He has said that the magistrates in the police courts are persons skilled in this sort of work. All the Metropolitan magistrates are very able persons to deal with matrimonial causes. But, surely he does not suggest—I know that he has had considerable experience in police courts—that a police court can do justice in a matter of this kind. We know that the police courts have to deal with a large number of criminal offences, and many other matters, and then, perhaps, take a number of matrimonial cases within an hour or two. Does he suggest that such a court can do justice in a matter of this kind? Anyone who has had any considerable experience of courts of summary jurisdiction would surely agree. I am not suggesting this from the point of view of competence, but because of the very onerous duties which are placed upon courts of that kind, and it would be extremely wrong to put upon that class of court the specific task of dealing with a matter of this kind.
It does not stop there. The magistrate has little experience of matters coming within the Rent Restriction Acts. For the very first time we propose to ask magistrates to deal with questions involving the perplexing status of a statutory tenant. If it were really desired to make this section effective, it would be far easier for the application to be made to the county court judge. There the matter could be tried out in a much calmer atmosphere and the necessary order obtained in that court.

Mr. Kaberry: Would the hon. Member say what the county court judge should try out?

Mr. Weitzman: Presumably—and I am following the Bill for a moment as though it were an Act—what the county court judge would try out would be an application made by a wife, who has obtained an order, because of the desertion of her husband, that the statutory tenancy be vested in her, whereupon under this Bill she would have to give notice to her husband, to the landlord and to all interested parties to attend the county court when the matter was dealt with.
Might I suggest that there is a much simpler way of dealing with the matter. Under Section 12 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, there is a definition of the word "tenant." Already that word has been extended in certain ways. We know, for example, that "tenant" includes the widow of the tenant or a member of the family. So if it is really desired that some protection should be obtained for a deserted wife, it would be the simplest thing in the world to amend Section 12 of the Rent Restriction Act so that the word "tenant" should include the words "deserted wife." If desired, words could be inserted giving the court discretion in the matter just as they have a discretion when it deals with the question who is a member of a family. Clause 1 of this Bill would, therefore, be entirely unnecessary, and its object achieved by an amendment such as I have suggested.
May I turn for one moment to the proviso in Clause 1 (2). I do not think anything has been said about that proviso. It is said there that the liability of the husband for rent should remain the husband's and should not be trans-

ferred to the deserted wife. But what about the liability for covenants to repair? What about other covenants contained in the tenancy? That is something on which this Bill is completely silent.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with chattels. A considerable amount of the criticism which I have made about Clause 1 applies to Clause 2. First of all, it is limited to cases of desertion. Again I venture to suggest that the criticism of the use of the court of summary jurisdiction as the tribunal, applies also to this Clause. Because of the mass of work upon which our courts of summary jurisdiction are engaged, it is unfair to put upon a magistrate the task of deciding what shall be done with regard to the ownership of chattels. I would remind hon. Members that this is not a case where an order is made automatically, but where a magistrate must go into the circumstances of the case. It will be necessary for the magistrate to hold a detailed inquiry into all the circumstances. The worst possible tribunal, in my view, to inquire into a matter of this kind, is a court of summary jurisdiction.
I have another objection to the Bill. There is a proviso in subsection (1) of the Clause that no order shall be made unless there is a child of the marriage under the age of 16 years living at the date of the application. What is the point of putting that proviso into the Bill? The promoters may think that a younger married woman with no children could start her own life, but surely they are forgetting the woman of 50 years of age or over who has no children. Why should not she have the benefit given by the Bill? Why limit the order to someone who is the proud possessor of a child or children under the age of 16?
Another point arises under subsection (3) where this provision appears:
Nothing in this section shall authorise the making of any order with respect to any property in which a third person has any right or interest, and any order made under this section, insofar as it purports to relate to any such property, shall he of no effect.
If that became law, the easiest thing in the world for any husband to do if he wished to defeat his wife's claim to the ownership of chattels, would be to give a third party an interest, at any time before the making of any order. As a result, the whole of this Clause would


become nugatory. Obviously, to make it effective, some limitation would have to be inserted as to the time when that interest was obtained by the third party.
I suggest there is a much simpler way to achieve the result desired by Clause 2. Reference has already been made to the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. Under Section 17 of that Act, either spouse has the right to bring an application with reference to any question of the ownership of property. A simple Amendment of Section 17 would achieve the purpose of Clause 2. If it were desired to put in words with regard to the discretion of the court they could easily be inserted. If it is suggested that a third party might suffer after having acquired the property from the husband or wife then, if the provisions in this Bill were the law of the land, the third party would acquire with the knowledge that such an order might have been made.
The promoters of the Bill are trying to do everything they can to remedy what they consider to be a very serious evil affecting a deserted wife. I have tried to show that the position of deserted wives as the law now stands is not the desperate one they have put forward as compared with some others. Surely the sad position is that of the wife who has divorced her husband on the ground of his adultery, desertion or some other matrimonial offence. Yet when a wife has done that, she ceases to be a wife and loses any right to the tenure of the matrimonial home or the ownership of any chattel. Why is that not dealt with here? It is a very striking evil, and is an important omission.
I have studied the Bill very carefully. I am extremely sympathetic towards the aims of the promoters and I am exceedingly anxious that every evil of that character shall be remedied, but I respectfully suggest to hon. Members that if they examine the defects in the Bill and the criticisms which can be made of the Clauses they will see that it is not a Bill which can be amended in Committee to remove the defects and criticisms. However sympathetic one may be towards its objects, the Bill, ought not to be allowed as it stands or as it could possibly be amended to go upon the Statute Book. The Amendment proposed by hon. Members opposite ought to be accepted by the House.

3.27 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: As I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I came to the conclusion that I was very lucky to have remained a spinster, because nothing could have been worse than to have found myself as an aggrieved married woman in court defended by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I offer my most sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) and congratulate her most heartily on having raised this very important subject.
This has been a lawyer's day. I am not a lawyer but merely a lay magistrate, and I hope that it will be recorded on the right side of my Parliamentary balance sheet if I restrain myself from discussing the relationships between lawyers and lay magistrates. I want, with very great diffidence, because I have a high respect for the legal profession, to comment upon one or two of the points which have been raised.
Many hon. Members have asserted that wives are adequately protected and that if a husband left a matrimonial home the landlord could not get possession of the house under the Rent Restriction Acts if the wife remained in occupation. If the husband sold all the furniture and left the wife without a single stick of furniture, I wonder whether she would still be protected. In any event a woman who would seek a remedy through the courts of summary jurisdiction would certainly not be able to refurnish a home for herself and her children. Anyhow, I doubt very much whether under the existing law there would be any protection, and I am not at all certain that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession of the house.
The second point I wish to raise is the point put with very great emphasis by my two hon. and learned Friends opposite—I hope they will take it as a sign of friendship that I still refer to them as hon. Friends. That was the question of giving to the courts of summary jurisdiction the right to deal with chattels. I cannot follow the argument—I do not call it a legal argument—as to why it is such a retrogressive step to give power to deal with chattels when courts of summary jurisdiction already have the power to deal with money. I know that certain


people do see property in a different light from money, but I have not such views. If the courts of summary jurisdiction can allocate part of the patrimony of a man, or his wages or salary, to maintain his wife and children I do not think we are going too far in just widening the scope to deal with chattels. I think that argument is quite unreasonable.
I wish also to take the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester regarding local authorities. My hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that she hoped, if this Bill became law, that its principles would be embodied in local authority practice. She told the House that, in fact, it is a practice which is followed by the Manchester local authority, of which she and the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) are such distinguished members. I am not being political today—merely friendly. Therefore, I agree that there is already a basis for following the principles embodied in the Bill.
I consider, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was very unwise. I noticed that he evaded my question as to whether he was prepared to alter the accepted principle today that local authority housing is dealt with by local authorities, and must not and cannot be interfered with either by politicians or courts of summary jurisdiction. I have been in the House of Commons a long time and my experience tells me that if my hon. Friend had set out to bring the local authorities within the ambit of this Bill, the Government would have been involved and certainly would have opposed the Bill. A great many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have raised that as a point of substance against the Bill. That does not go just for the present Government; it goes for the Opposition if it had been the Government, and I assume also for the second Opposition in the House of Commons. Therefore. I do not think that was a point of substance.
I wish to give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) to introduce his Bill, which stands next on the Order Paper because it also is a Bill in which we are all interested, so I will at once deal with the main objection to this Bill, which is its restricted scope. I want to put this point of view

to hon. Members on both sides. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend and those of us who are supporting her would be very willing to withdraw this Bill today, and not to test it in the Division Lobbies, if the Government would say that they have been so impressed by the volume of issues, raised mostly by legal Members, showing that there is a very wide variety of matrimonial difficulties which require legislative action, that they would be prepared to substitute for this Private Member's Bill a Government Bill covering all these various points.
I do not notice anybody jumping up from the Front Bench to accept my offer, but I would like to say in all sincerity that I do appreciate quite a number of the points which have been raised by Members of the legal profession today. They are very wise indeed to emphasise some of these points, although I thoroughly enjoy pulling their legs on occasion, since lawyers are always included in general jokes on the community, and I noticed the emphasis on the High Court instead of on courts of summary jurisdiction.
Quite seriously, however, the real issue is that it is almost impossible—and, again, this goes for my party as well as the party opposite—for some reason or other, for any Government to find time to deal with a Bill that raises issues particularly relating to women. It is, indeed, a most extraordinary thing. I remember very well the hon. Lady who was formerly a Member for the Combined Universities, Miss Eleanor Rathbone, fighting for very many years until we managed to place on the Statute Book, against the advice of all the lawyers, the Family Inheritance Act, which provided very many fees for the legal profession, who should be more grateful for the efforts of some women Members of this House. The point is that we never are able to get Government time for such a Bill, and I was particularly struck, in the first King's Speech after the General Election, when the Government were supposed to be looking for legislation of a non-controversial nature, that some of these issues dealing with some outstanding problems relating to women were not included in it.
Not so very long ago, certain lawyers introduced a Bill, which is now on the Statute Book, dealing with maintenance


orders and in which we brought Scotland and England closer together in relation to the law. That was before the Stone of Scone disappeared. I listened to the speeches of all the lawyers, both from my own side and from the Government side, in which they said that the provisions of that Measure were essential to the proper administration of the courts of summary jurisdiction and were also essential to the protection of women. It has taken nine years to get that Bill on the Statute Book, and I refrained from saying what I thought about the lawyers at that time. What a cynical thing it is, in a world full of hardship and distress and of legitimate grievances crying out for remedies, that everybody should sit and congratulate one another, when it has taken nine long years to bring about an alteration of procedure which even the lawyers agreed was essential for the proper administration of the law.
I am very pleased about this Bill, although it may be narrow in scope. I think that the procedure for Private Members' Bills has been very cleverly laid down in Erskine May in order to discourage Private Members from introducing such Bills. At any rate, my experience in the House of Commons has always taught me that on Private Members' days, the simpler the Bill the more chance there is of getting it, at any rate, a Second Reading. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend is very wise to make the first step forward. The reference of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) to the Miners' Compensation Bill—and I am very proud to say that was a Conservative Member's Bill; miners and Members please note—was a very sound and a very good illustration. This is only the beginning, and in case anybody thinks that we are going to be satisfied with just the very small provisions of this Bill, it may be that if we take an inch we will get the ell.
Therefore, today we are going to try to strike a blow for a very narrow, restricted Measure, but we all feel that this is the first step. As the hon. Member for Wythenshawe so very wisely, and so very gracefully said, if this Bill focuses public attention on the need for such a Measure, then we shall not have fought this battle in vain. Even though it is narrow in scope and has all sorts of difficulties, it may be that if it is given

its Second Reading and goes to the Committee stage, it will be improved, but if, after it has gone through the Committee stage and comes back to this House, it is then not acceptable to the House, that would be the occasion on which to oppose the Bill, and not on Second Reading.
I think I am right in saying that it is the traditional approach of the House to these matters to give a Second Reading to a Bill and then see what can be done to amend it in Committee. We feel very strongly that there are many grievances outstanding so far as women are concerned, and now that we have been lucky enough to have a woman Member gain a place in the ballot, I think it would be ungracious of everybody not to give the Bill a Second Reading today. Therefore, if I may in my small way commend it to the House, I do so in the hope that we will give it a Second Reading and will see what we can do, with the help of the lawyers, to amend it in Committee.

3.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): After having had the pleasure on the previous Bill before the House today, of being able to assure its promoters that it had the Government's blessing, I am sorry that on this occasion, particularly when the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) moved this Bill so charmingly and with such sincerity, I cannot give the same assurance.
If I may say so, the speech made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), puts the point of view which is taken by both the old Ministry of Health, whose interests in this field will soon be taken over by the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, and of the Home Office in regard to Clauses 1 and 2. I do not think the case could have been stated better or with greater clarity, and it is not with any lack of symapthy in any shape or form that we must ask the House, if the promoters cannot see their way to withdraw the Bill today, to reject it. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) suggested that I might be able to give some guarantee as to future legislation. I am afraid such a guarantee cannot be given. but I could, if the Bill were withdrawn, give the hon. Member for Wythenshawe the guarantee that we would be quite willing


to enter into discussions with her and some of her hon. Friends on the points she has raised so far as both the Ministry of Health and the Home Office are concerned. But a guarantee of possibility of legislation is really out of the question at the present time, because of the very wide range of the subject and the fact that any Government proposing to bring in such really fundamental legislation ought to be certain that it was going to be dealt with as a whole. It would be difficult to do that in the present Parliament.

Miss Ward: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will he say whether, from his point of view as well as perhaps from our point of view, he would put it in his next party programme and leave us to deal with our party?

Mr. Lindgren: Speaking personally, I have spent most of my life trying to make it possible for folk to live together rather than apart. In spite of such activities we do get these problems, and in dealing with them I am not concerned with party programmes. I am sorry I missed the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). Unfortunately I had to go to lunch and therefore I missed what I understood from him just now was really the last word with regard to this Bill. I really cannot enter into discussion of or criticise what he said but I understand that he too took the view that this Bill was not exactly necessary, though perhaps for slightly different reasons.
The reasons why we oppose Clauses 1 and 2 have been very ably stated by a number of legal gentlemen today. The first is that Clause 1 is completely unnecessary in the view of the Ministry of Health, inasmuch as the recent legal decision in the case of Middleton v. Baldock, quoted by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), really gives the protection which the deserted wife requires. The point was made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe with regard to local authorities. She referred to her experience as a member of the Manchester City Council, and certainly those of us who have had local government experience know that in these difficult matters the local authority although they are excluded under the Rent Restrictions

Acts, have always given security of tenure to the woman in these circumstances. Therefore, so far as the local authority side is concerned, the point is covered.
As the law is already safe with regard to married women, we feel that Clause 1 is redundant and, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) it makes the position much worse in many instances. It certainly makes it more uncertain than ever before; and we could not ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading because it would cause still greater uncertainty.
When one comes to Clause 2, the uncertainties and difficulties are much greater than in the case of Clause 1. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe in her opening speech herself put the point so far as the division of these chattels is concerned. Really, in working-class circles, it is a joint issue all through. In most cases the girl, to ensure that she is going to have a home some time, takes some of the money from the fellow each week. Sometimes he has even got to marry the woman to get his money back. That is common in working-class circles. Really, from the start, the home is a joint affair. The old idea of the provision by one partner or the other of certain parts of the home is out of date. It never existed at all in the case of the majority of those whom I am certain the hon. Lady wants to help.
On the question of a division of property which has always been joint property, can one expect the petty sessional court to do the job well? It is a matter for agreement. Even when people are at loggerheads, there is more likelihood of agreement by discussion between the two parties than by a decision by a court. In addition, this Bill might encourage husbands to do something which they have not thought of doing. If they started to take action before the wife got her order under Clause 2, they could forestall her and she would be left with nothing at all. If Clause 2 was operated it would make conditions even more insecure for women who are left in these circumstances.
I conclude by expressing genuine sympathy with the intentions of the hon. Lady. It must be most annoying for her. She has been dealing with a human problem which she has found in her


public work in the city which she represents. She is concerned to do the right thing by these people who are suffering distressing circumstances. Our legal friends have pointed out how difficult it would be on the basis of the wording of the Bill to deal with existing circumstances. Therefore, without reference to the problems with which the hon. Lady wanted to deal, if she cannot find it possible to withdraw the Bill I recommend that the Amendment should be supported in order to do justice, or to maintain what justice there is, for these people.

3.54 p.m.

Mrs. Corbet: I have listened to the whole debate and I would say, as one of the supporters of the Bill, that it is clear that some Amendments during the Committee stage would be desirable. It would be our intention to accept every Amendment that would meet the objections raised today. I understand that many of those objections could be met by Amendments.

Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Preamble to this Bill would itself confine the scope of the Bill to desertion and would make it impossible to amend so as to include cruelty?

Mrs. Corbet: Yes. I agree that perhaps the Preamble is the most unfortunate part of the Bill. If it is not possible to amend the Preamble, we shall be prepared to bring in a limited type of legislation. We would do that realising that this may be just the beginning of more comprehensive legislation which would clear up the whole business. We have not, as far as I can gather, got any promise of any kind to deal with this comprehensively, and, after all, that is what we mainly want. I think that all of us want to bring in every category of separated or divorced or otherwise unhappy women—and sometimes even men, for all of us must be aware that there are unhappy men. I myself have come across men who have been deserted by their wives and left with the children to bring up, and whose wives have somehow or another spirited the furniture away.
I know perfectly well that there is a vast range of problems here that ought to be dealt with, and dealt with speedily, because they are creating considerable hardship every day.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: They cannot be in this Bill.

Mrs. Corbet: I am told that they cannot be in this Bill, but I am not being told by the Government that they will do anything about the matter. If the House voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, it would show that it wanted something done about it. Moreover, then the Bill would go to Committee, and although we cannot do very much in this Bill, we can do something to help. There is always the Third Reading on which a Bill can he turned down. Even then, the subject can be given another airing. The whole business can be given an airing in Committee if the Bill goes to Committee. I see no harm, and, indeed, every good, in granting a Second Reading to the Bill and sending it to Committee. I hope that, as a result of the deliberations, the Government would be prepared to bring in a comprehensive Bill, and that, if they were not, Private Members would get together to bring in a Bill—perhaps next year.
Let me just take the point about the tenancies. I know that the position is fairly satisfactory, but I know of cases at this moment in which the husband persists in remaining in the house, and he is a nuisance and makes life a burden to the wife in the house. There is no remedy against him, because he is the tenant. He can do what he likes in the house, and if he wants to confine his wife in one room with the children, and take all the rest of the furniture in the house for himself, he can do it. It is not a satisfactory position. It is all very well to say that the wife has all the protection that she needs. She has not.
Let me take the question of the chattels. Here, I am still more anxious, because there is here a principle. I think it is recognised to be a principle of some validity. It is a principle that may shock, because it does arrange for the transfer of ownership—not, as was suggested just now, a decision as to whose the ownership is, but a transfer of ownership—from one person to another, and that has been suggested by a court—

Mrs. Hill: Mrs. Hill rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mrs. Corbet: I do not wish to say anything further.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: I listened with very great care and attention to the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), and while I did not follow her absolutely, I feel that the House is really indebted to her for bringing this matter to our

It being after Four o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Delargy.]

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is over a year since this House in the last Parliament debated the subject of cruelty to children. In the interval that has elapsed there has been a considerable amount of publicity once again devoted to various aspects of the matter. Today,

notice, and I have a very strong and growing feeling that at some time in, perhaps the not-distant future—

Mrs. Hill: Mrs. Hill rose in her place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 44: Noes, 51.

Division No. 15.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Janner, B.
Scott, Donald


Ayles, W. H.
Jenkins, R. H.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Banks, Col. C.
Kaberry, D.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham S.)


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
King, H. M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Kinley, J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Channon, H.
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Colegate, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
MacColl, J. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


Gammans, L. D.
Maudling, R.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.



Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Russell, R. S.
Mrs. Hill and Mrs. Corbet


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.





NOES


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bell, R. M.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mulley, F. W.


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
O'Brien, T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Peart, T. F.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Proctor, W.


Callaghan, James
Gunter, R. J.
Robens, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hargreaves, A.
Sparks, J. A.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Weitzman, D.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Willey. F. T. (Sunderland)


Deer, G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)



Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Newton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Mr. John Hay and


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McAllister, G.
Mr. Turner-Samuels

in the short time that is available to me, I want to pin-point two particular aspects of the matter which were not dealt with to any extent on the last occasion, but upon which public opinion has shown itself anxious and worried since then.

The subject to which I wish to refer is the delay in bringing cases of cruelty to court. Before I come to that, I should like to say a word on the rather more thorny subject of the inadequate penalties which are imposed and, allied to that, the question of the maximum penalties. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for being here today, but I would really have preferred to see the Home Secretary, because it is his opinion on the subject of penalties


that I wish to dispute. He has stated that he considers the present maximum penalties are enough, although I think he is some way behind public opinion in the matter.

The type of cases to which I am referring are not what I believe doctors call in their jargon "psychopathics," but those people who commit acts of cool, calculated cruelty to children which are not the result of a sudden brain storm. This type of case is unfortunately still very common, and only a heavy penalty will be a deterrent. The Home Secretary was asked, partly as a result of a newspaper campaign, that he should send a general directive to magistrates drawing their attention to this matter and submitting suggestions. He has declined to do so, and I should be the first to agree with him if he refuses to dictate to the magistrates—we have not yet come to that.

I feel however that the magistrates' attention should be drawn to the very great public feeling on this matter, and also to the anomalies in the penalties that are imposed for offences of cruelty on the one hand and, on the other, offences which are not nearly so grave and serious. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the position and consider writing to magistrates on the lines suggested. If he is not willing to do that himself, I suggest that he might consult with the Lord Chancellor and perhaps the latter might take the necessary action. The Home Office ought to be aware of the very strong feeling there is throughout the country on this matter.

The other point to which I wish to draw attention is the delay in bringing cases to court. This has also been the subject of attention in the newspapers. In a recent case in an East London police court, the magistrate very strongly censured the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because while the child concerned was under observation over a period of a year, no action was taken to bring the case to court. I was particularly interested in this case, because my attention had been drawn by a constituent to two similar cases I think it very unfortunate, whatever the rights or wrongs of this particular case may be, that the N.S.P.C.C. should have been thus pilloried and should have received so much undue and rather hostile publicity.

Any one who is interested in this subject would want to pay tribute to the Society for the wonderful work done in the last 60 or 70 years. The very fact that public opinion is shocked by these things nowadays is largely due, not only to the work they have done for the children, but the education that they have done to the grown-ups as well. They it is who have aroused public opinion and drawn our attention to the scandals which exist, and they it is who over these years have done so much hard work to make happier the homes in which these children live, and assist them where these cases of cruelty existed.

I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as any kind of attack upon that Society. Indeed, it is the very reverse. In this matter, however, one can have, some misgivings as to whether their policy is really the right one. Their policy, in the words of the Society itself, is that no parent is hopeless and that they must try to keep the home, parents and children together as long as possible rather than let the child go to a home or institution.

If that policy fails, then a grave responsibility rests on those who fail to bring the prosecution, because the child has suffered cruelty over a period of months as a result of that delay and almost irreparable damage may have been done to that child. Of course, these particular cases are but a minute percentage of the thousands of cases with which the Society deals. However, there is that great danger, and I think we may question whether that policy is always right. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us whether he is satisfied that this is the right course, and whether the Home Office view is that the type of rehabilitation work being undertaken is adequate.

I should further like to know whether in the cases to which I have drawn attention, the number of visits which are made to the homes is adequate and whether, in fact, the ambition of the Society to keep cases away from the court is really the right one. One point very relevant to this issue was put to me recently by a magistrate in a juvenile court who pointed out that if a case involved cruelty to a child and was brought to court it did not necessarily mean that the home was going to be broken up. Indeed, far from that. Very often the child was put under the care


of a probation officer, and the very fact of that being done was a deterrent to further acts of cruelty by the parents.

One of the reasons which is causing these long delays and making it difficult for adequate supervision to be given to the children in their own homes and to the families where this type of cruelty is likely to arise, is that there is still a lack of co-operation between all the various social workers who are involved. Last July the Home Secretary in his circular 225, issued in conjunction with other Ministries, drew the attention of county councils and county borough councils to the need for co-operation in this matter. I am not sure what was envisaged, but I should like to hear whether the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that that scheme is working, and whether when there is a suspected case of cruelty to a child, all those involved are brought quickly into consultation. It may mean the police constable, probably the school attendance officer, the school teacher, and a number of social workers. I should like to know what the Minister's views are on that point.

I want to ask a question on one detail. Has the Minister's attention ever been drawn to the type of rehabilitation work done by a body called the Family Service Units? They have a remarkable record in the slums of the big cities where they carry out an amazing work of rehabilitation and of restoring families whose social standards and standards of living are of the lowest, to a decent way of life. I feel that their approach, from what I know of it, is right. Something of that type and spirit might be brought into practice when this kind of cruelty to children is involved.

I have one final point. In the course of my researches I discovered that the Home Office Children's Department has not, as far as I can ascertain in the Library, reported since 1938. This is an unduly long interval. I hope that when this Department's next report comes along it will be borne in mind that this subject is of burning interest and importance to many citizens and social workers. I hope that the next report will not be couched in the usual Blue Book style of language but will give social workers some idea of what is being done, what remains to be done, and how they can help.

I have tried this afternoon to avoid telling any harrowing stories of cruelty. I have avoided the temptation of playing to the gallery even today when the stalls are not very full. This matter arouses strong public feeling to an extent which is not always appreciated by those in authority.

4.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) for raising this matter today, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he raised it. I should begin by making clear the responsibility of the Home Secretary in this matter. It is not the duty of the Home Secretary either to institute proceedings or to give directions to the police or to anyone else to institute proceedings for offences under Part I of the Act of 1933. It is for the police, or the N.S.P.C.C. Inspector, or the local education authority, to decide, in the circumstances of each case, whether a prosecution is justified. There is a connection between prosecutions under Section 1 of the Act and the provisions of the same Act dealing with children in need of care and protection.
For example, under Section 61, a child in need of care and protection is defined as including a child in respect of whom an offence under Section 1 has been committed. The Home Secretary has responsibility in connection with the care and protection provisions. I want to make this clear before I come to the point made by the hon. Member. Thus under Section 62 (4) the Home Secretary may authorise persons to institute court or protection proceedings, and under this provision officers of the N.S.P.C.C. have been Made "authorised persons." Thus, although the Home Secretary has no responsibility for prosecuting or directing prosecutions, he has responsibility for the welfare of the child.
It is alleged—this is one of the two allegations that the hon. Member made—that the N.S.P.C.C. is slow and reluctant to institute proceedings and that while they delay the child continues to suffer. The last annual report of the society shows the number of cases in which there were prosecutions, and the N.S.P.C.C.


claims that the interests of the children are best served by helping the parents to improve conditions in the home and so keeping the family together rather than by resorting to prosecution. On page 5 the report refers to the society's inspectors and says:
Their first duty is to try to ensure the happy upbringing of every child that comes under their notice in its own home and by its own parents; and that is always their first aim.
The principal aim of the Society agrees with paragraph 447 of the Curtis Committee Report, which speaks of the extreme seriousness of taking a child away from even an indifferent home. Paragraph 447 reads:
… we wish to emphasise once more the extreme seriousness of taking a child away from even an indifferent home. Every effort should he made to keep the child in its home … provided that the home is or can be made reasonably satisfactory. The aim of the authority must he to find something better—indeed much better—if it takes the responsibility of providing a substitute home.
That is the basis of the aim of the Society.
Furthermore, on the matter of delay, there are many cases in which the Society claims that the delay is due to the time taken to collect the evidence necessary to prove wilful neglect or ill-treatment. Whatever hon. Members may think of the practice of the Society, I am sure that nearly all hon. Members will agree that its aim is right. Going further than that, I am sure that hon. Members would expect the Home Secretary to ensure that no unnecessary suffering was caused by any defect in the machinery which is operated. I was very glad indeed when the hon. Member referred to the circular which the Home Secretary, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education sent to local authorities last July. That circular is the basis of a procedure which we hope will avoid the lack of co-operation between the various people interested in and concerned with children, both official bodies and voluntary organisations, the point made by the hon. Member.
The circular suggested that the local authorities should designate one officer to whom all cases of ill-treatment should be reported and that officer should be responsible for holding regular meetings of representatives of not only all the

statutory services—that would be expected with a local authority—but also of the voluntary organisations, which in nearly every case means the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. As a result of that circular, about half the authorities have designated officers. That is the measure of the steps which have been taken by the local authorities. While it is early yet to say that this has been fully successful I feel that if there is any unnecessary suffering due to delay the existence of this procedure will go a long way to do away with it.
There were a number of points about the work of the Society which I think I can best answer by saying that now the Home Office has completed the reorganisation of the Children's Branch Inspectorate we shall soon be undertaking an examination of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to see if the excellent work done by their inspectors up and down the country can be improved even further by any suggestions which our inspectors can make from their experience.
An important point was made by the hon. Member when he dealt with the 'matter of penalties. It is suggested that penalties ought to be increased. The hon. Member also asked if magistrates were aware that public opinion calls for heavier sentences. The law is clear. Anyone guilty of cruelty to a child is liable, on summary conviction, to six months' imprisonment and a fine of £25 or further imprisonment in default of payment; and on conviction on indictment to two years' imprisonment and a fine of £100. Of course, in accordance with the ordinary principles of our law, within these limits the appropriate penalty is a matter for the courts.
The penalties imposed by the magistrates show that so far from their being any evidence that they are inadequate, there is in fact a very substantial reserve of power in the hands of the magistrates which they do not always use. I do not think that a court now inclined to leniency would be in any way likely to impose more severe penalties if the maximum were increased. If benches generally were imposing the maximum penalty and there was a general feeling that these punishments were too light there


might be a case for altering the law and increasing the penalty.
I therefore come to the matter in this way. First, I think it wrong for us to make a general criticism in this House of what magistrates have done in certain cases when we have not before us the full evidence and circumstances of the cases. Having said that, I think it is equally wrong for some benches of magistrates to ignore the fact, which has been shown in this House on many occasions recently, that the public is unhappy about the low penalties imposed in many cases.
I heard with interest the reference of the hon. Member to the Family Service Units and the good work they were doing. They have a good record. Of course, they are a small organisation, but I will gladly look at their work to see if there is any way in which we can improve this good service. As to the report of the Children's Department, the hon. Member is right in saying that there has not been a report since 1938. The report previous to that was the 1928 report.
In 1928, the practice of having an annual report was abandoned, and, thereafter, reports were only brought out when there had been some big development in the work of the Children's Department. Since then, this House has passed the extremely important Children Act, 1948, which was a milestone in our social history, and, accordingly, now that we have seen it working, the time has come for another report. It so happens that the proof of a new report came from the printers yesterday, and we hope that report will be published by the Stationery Office in March. The range of subjects covered is wide indeed, and, as the hon. Member said, it will interest many people concerned with this matter of the care of children.

Mr. James Stuart: May. I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He was speaking a few moments ago about penalties. May I ask him whether maximum penalties have been imposed in any cases, because I should have thought there was a difficulty in defining a high enough penalty for a genuine case of cruelty to children.

Mr. de Freitas: I could not say, but the fact is that the law does lay down maximum penalties. I was referring to the argument that we might increase these penalties, and I was saying that, so far from their being any apparent need to increase them, magistrates do not use their maximum power.

Miss Irene Ward: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point, which is the responsibility of the prosecution, of the necessity to ensure that suitable cases should go from courts of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions, which I gather, is one of the big difficulties.

Mr. de Freitas: I shall risk misleading the House by speaking from memory. I recall that the hon. Lady herself had a supplementary question on 19th October in very much the same terms, and I do not think I can add to the answer of my right hon. Friend at that time.
If I may just use the last minute available to me, I would conclude by saying that the report will be out in March. I hope that hon. Members and the public generally will read it, because it is most important, and I take this opportunity of recommending it to the House and the public, and of thanking the hon. Member for having raised this important subject today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes to Five o'Clock.